What Are People Saying?

April 21st, 2006

Editor
Ottawa Sun

Dear Sir,

Finally, (Susan Sherring's "Tax Hit Way out of Place", April 21st), we have a report of Ottawa's Mayor and Councillors publically expressing concens with the quality of work by City staff. It took three days after the staff report on was voted on by a Council Committee for staff to admit that their recommendation for a tax increase for a Scotia Bank Place wasn't consistent with a formal agreement.

I strongly encourage Councillors - and the Sun - to take heed, and closely examine other City staff recommendations, starting with the North-South LRT project. Make sure you - and the tax-paying residents and businesses you represent - confirm value-for-money ($725m), low financial risk, minimal disruption to existing transit services, and compliance with federal and Ontario law of what is proposed before giving the project the green light.

David Gladstone

March 28, 2006 , Mayor Chiarelli,

As a member of the ongoing Public Working Group for the selection of the LRT Maintenance Yard, facilitated by your Staff and set out under a mandate by the Provincial Min. of Environment, might I remind you that while your due diligence with regard to the Agreement in Principle does not mean a Maintenance Yard will go on the Airport lands.

You have a wide panel of residents who are sacrificing a great deal of time on the PWG, only to see time and time again, quips like the one below indicating that the process we’re following is for naught.

I am personally offended by the fact that this sort of jibe has been repeated at least three times in public over the past week. We have not even gotten to establish the criteria and weights for the assessment, let alone have we made a recommendation for Transportation Committee, which would then go to council.

You, Sir, have been given a mandate by the Province of Ontario to see this PWG process through. Are you telling me that you’re ignoring it?

Peter J. Hillier

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 , Dear Ms. McDonald,

You may not be aware that I negotiated an agreement in priciple to establish the maintenance facility on airport lands and not on the Lester site. It needs to be approved by council.If this happens, which is likley, the wishes of Emerald Woods residents will be satisfied.

Bob Chiarelli.

March 26,2006 7:11 PM, Dear Mr. Chiarelli and Ottawa Councillors,

I am writing regarding the Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by the Ontario government, the Federal government and the City of Ottawa in April 2005. In the agreement it is clearly stated that the LRT Rail Yard “would be located on the existing CPR Walkley Yard property” (Schedule A, page 8). The federal and Ontario governments agreed to fund the project at $200 Million each “subject to the satisfaction of the conditions described herein” (page 3). It is perplexing and frustrating to know that the City of Ottawa went to great lengths and expense in the Environmental Assessment to research 3 possible sites: one owned by Transport Canada and not for sale, one a green space (Lester), and one, the Walkey site.

It is becoming clear through the public working group meetings that the project planners are bent on developing the Lester site, even though the MOU states that it is not even under consideration. It seems underhanded and illegal that the City has chosen to circumvent the MOU by using the EA to alter what was previously agreed upon. A great deal of personal time has been spent by many community members to convince the city that using a brown field already in existence as a rail yard is far superior to creating another brown field, and in the process, destroying green space inhabited by deer and other wildlife, and used by local residence for recreation.

I urge you to look into this matter, as it is repugnant that the City should use such questionable tactics, wasting valuable public resources and the energies of individual citizens trying to be heard.

Julie M.

Friday March 24, 2006

Mr. Harrison, Mr. O'Mara,

For your information, this message was sent to Minister Broten last night.
If you haven't already seen page 8, re: maintenance yard location.

Please see stream of emails below.

It appears that the only reason the city of Ottawa agreed to putting the re-use of a Brownfield maintenance yard location as part of the MOU, was to secure Government funding for the project ($400 M).

Let's think about this for a moment, you know that the Provincial and Federal Governments would have never agreed to levelling a greenspace field (site 2 or site 3) when an ideal Brownfield location was available.

The city has used the EA study and process, to change what they see as a constraint on the MOU. Unbelievable!!

Cheryl D.

Tues March 22, 2006
Hi all,

So what's new? These things tend to be "done deals" while they waste community members' time holding sham consultations.

I have been wracking my brains trying to figure out why anyone in their right mind wouldn't automatically choose the site of an existing brownfield instead of destroying more green space. They say when you can't understand something to look for the dollar interest. But I don't know enough about land ownership for the railyard itself or the adjacent lands to pinpoint the dollar interest.

The choice of a site other than Walkley would either:

1. primarily benefit the landowner/s who want to sell the land but can only sell it for certain uses;

2. increase the value of adjacent lands due to their being serviced by the railyard development (as Marcel Beaudry's lands were serviced by the Museum of Nature's badly sited Pink Road facility);

3. lead to development approvals for surrounding lands due to zoning changes resulting from locating the railyard on one of the sites other than Walkley.

Has anyone any idea why the city wants to destroy more natural areas?

Ann C

Tues March 22, 2006

From the latest news and the City's shift from Lester site to the Bowesville site, although is perceived as good news to the residents around the Lester site, is terrible for the greenspace at Bowesville.

OFGAC needs to be very vocal and restate its position of reutilizing an existing train yard and brownfield, instead of destroying virgin territory.

Even if the "working group" has yet to complete its mandated review of the 3 proposed sites, it appears that the City is moving forward regardless of the outcome of this group's work.

N.P.

Tues March 22, 2006

This is yet another example of the City's "transparency". Consider all the time and effort and money (for the consultants) that has gone into this "site evaluation" effort and we end up with another back room deal. I guess the council and staff of this "enlightened" City consider that we lack the necessary sophistication and expertise to deal with important matters.

Has anyone seen a drawing of this Bowesville site and the proposed parking lot. About 70 acres are about to be transformed into LRT yard and parking facility. We should know where so we can comment on likely environmental consequences.

A.

Tues March 22, 2006

Page B3 of today’s Ottawa Citizen describes an agreement between the City and the Airport Authority that seems to guarantee that the Lester Rd site won’t be used for the maintenance yard.

So, it looks as if Réjean Chartrand has made up his mind to use the Bowesville site and has offered the Airport Authority expanded sewage capacity.

I don’t recall this deal going through a Standing Committee of Council.

And, I ask, why are a number of citizens, OFGAC included, spending time looking at options?

I.

Wed March 15, 2006

Peter et al,

I also read the OBJ piece. It is perfectly true that there are benefits to be had (as a general rule) as regards the effect of rail transit stations/stops on adjacent property values. However, because of the plethora of deficiencies associated with this particular scheme, I would contend that these benefits will likely turn out to be negligible in comparison, in this particular case.

It must be born in mind that the scheme as planned will funnel LRT trains/vehicles along a constricted, busy downtown thoroughfare, that is already choked with buses and other vehicles as it is. The LRT service will have to wend its way (likely very slowly, which will hardly add to its appeal to transit riders) amongst busy traffic, not only along the street it is travelling along, but intersecting traffic at intersections. (This would all be avoided if a segregated route through the core (such as tunnel, or as I have suggested, an Ottawa River shoreline/Rideau Canal route, which would be much cheaper, had been selected - and I have a feeling that in the long term the Albert-Slater route could be downgraded to a secondary streetcar route, and superseded by the other alternatives because of these problems) were the chosen route.

Another major failing is the fact that (as many critics have already pointed out) the routing, (to a largely undeveloped area in the south end) will likely result in minimal ridership anyway, which will significantly lessen the value of being adjacent to a station or stop on such a system.

These are, of course, just two, of a raft of defects with which the transit scheme as proposed is riddled. Personally, I think the author of the OBJ article was trying to bend over backwards to try to find something positive to say about a scheme that, as far as I am concerned has to rank as one of the! worst and most incompetent transit schemes ever proposed by a Canadian municipality.

Rod T.

Mar. 2, 2006 - Regarding Working Group Meeting

I was amazed last night when MMM consultants admitted they knew absolutely nothing about the new storm water retention pond, and the effect it would have on the space needed for a S.W. quadrant connecting track, to get freight down to the NRC at Lester road.

They also did not want to concede that Réjean Chartrand admitted at TTC yesterday morning that freight will have to share one of the LRT tracks, until I pinned them down after the PWG meeting, and showed them the document that city staff handed out at TTC.

If freight can share the LRT line, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for the expensive flyover bridge they showed a plan of last night, to get LRT vehicles from Walkley yard dispatched south. Just cross over the freight lead, on the existing crossovers east of Bank St., and head south on the existing S.E. quadrant connecting track, past the Greenboro platform. Use gantlet track for freight, as I showed on the S. Keys station model, and is now standard on many U.S. railroads.

Tim L.

Mar. 2, 2006

Peter Et al. Two very important questions that everyone seems to miss

(1) Where are we going to get the Hydro to run the Streetcars?

(2) Why did City Staff ignore Councils decision to not include Diesel Mutable Units ?

Dick H.

Feb. 24, 2006

I have serious concerns with City Staff's preferred site for the North-South Light Rapid Transit Maintenance/Storage Yard near the Emerald Woods community. It is very short-sighted to destroy a green space with a rail yard when there is an existing yard at the Walkley location available and already in use ... I continue to work closely with the community to locate the yard at one of the other sites recommended by the City in the Environmental Assessment.

Councillor Diane Deans

Feb. 21, 2006 - In response to Citizen Article 'Transit Truth Jumps the Tracks'

... Denley does an efficient job of showing how the city's North-South business case does not exist (in much the same way the current East-West business case is also MIA).

There are many reasons why the current NS plan does not make sense: maintenance yard location, O-Train closure, etc...) but surely the most fundamental reason must include the fact that $725M+ buys the city virtually nothing towards increased transit ridership: "The $725 million north-south train will only reach one area that is not already well-served by transit. Riverside South, assuming it increases in size tenfold, will generate 1,400 riders in the morning rush by 2021. That would be less than half of one per cent of all morning rush hour trips."

If you disagree with this analysis and conclusion, please help me understand why it may be wrong. If you agree, then you must be obligated to do whatever is necessary to set it right. You each have all the tools to do so at your disposal.

If you will excuse the graphic metaphor, in my opinion all three levels of govt will have political blood on their hands if cooler heads do not prevail. The city for shooting Ottawa taxpayers & commuters, and the provincial & federal governments for providing the $400M inducement & ammunition to do it. The North-South project must be stopped and thoroughly reviewed and recast until a sane and feasible plan for public transit is provided.

Respectfully,

Steve F.

P.S.: It is a stunning commentary on the failure of the city's planning and consultation process that such an irresponsible project could proceed so far. However this is another topic for another day.

Feb. 8, 2006 - Response by Mr. Lathrop of Light Rail project to questions from Bernie Geiger

How can we ensure there will be access to the west from Greenboro and South Keys stations to the new ponds, trails and Cahill W?
Trail access was and is being reviewed in detail design work to be linked to a trail going parallel to the LRT

Why is a third track required to the NRC for maybe 6 return trips a year when they currently can share the O Train line?
A third track may not be needed , also being reviewed.

Can the contractors propose and build incrementally. That is a single track line to say Leitrim and double track and extend south only when volumes require? Would a long single track line now not be preferable to a short underused double track?
A double track is required for the entire distance for operational and ridership reasons from day one.

What is the priority for a single track spur to the airport?
No ( see above)

Similarly will overpasses at VIA be built only when safety and volumes warrant?
Via overpass needed day one, again for operational reasons.

Can they propose low emission diesel or a mixed fleet? Will the City acquire sufficient land near Bayview City Centre so the curve is not too
tight?
The EA settled on all electric trains for operational, maintenance, downtown use and no transfer ( ridership ) reasons.

Can the City guarantee uninterrupted service on the existing line to Carleton U? No break in service over 4 summer months is acceptable.
Construction requirements will mean interruption of service and this will be minimized as much as possible.

Why is the existing brownfield Walkley railyard not preferred?
Walkley yard option is still being considered as a continuation of the EA process.

How can we ensure there will not be "large animal" and pedestrian barriers in greenspace and wildlife corridors such as the Emerald Woods area?
Through this area there is presently a rail corridor now we are using it so there is no change to present status.

How will there be citizen and community input at strategic and detailed levels as design progresses and decisons are made?
EA identified the issues associated with building the line. Detailed design will not vary from EA approval requirements.

Feb. 8, 2006 - Council met at 1pm, LRT was on the Agenda

I was at this today, right up to the final vote on Diane Deans motion, which passed. Clive Doucet's motion was changed to a commitment from Kent Kirkpatrick on keeping Council informed better. I view it as a very positive outcome towards building a consensus. More motions to be dealt with at next council meeting.

I was named as a persistent troublemaker by Kent Kirkpatrick in his answer on diesel versus electric. Diane Holmes leapt to the defense of Transport 2000 (not naming me personally).

David Jeanes - Transport 2000

To which we reply...

Mr. Kirkpatrick,

With all due respect, people become "persistent troublemakers" when they continue to see so many flaws with the process or study.

Perhaps if you chose to listen, learn, ask questions, of people who are actually going out of their way to try and help you, perhaps this project would not be in the sad state it's in today.

Transport 2000 Canada is a non-profit organization whose primary purpose is research, public education and consumer advocacy. It promotes environmentally-sound transportation solutions and gets actively involved in a wide range of issues such as: public transportation, safety, accessibility, energy efficiency, protection of t! he environment, intermodal cooperation and government regulation.

Mr. Kirkpatrick, you have an opportunity to work with a group of incredible individuals, instead you continue to show them disrespect at every opportunity. Personally I've had enough of your unprofessionalism, and I wouldn't blame anyone at Transport 2000 Canada if they chose not to work with you.

saveourgreenspace

Feb 6, 2006 - To Ottawa Business Journal

Dear Editor,

Thank you for continuing to interview Mr. Rejean Chartrand in your article on light rail this week. It's good to have him in print, and on the record. It makes it a lot easier to refute his nonsense.

I'm a transit user, and I listen carefully to information from all sorts of places.

You quote him this week as saying: "The main issue has to do with operating these diesel engines downtown, and clearly everybody agrees that you would not do that."

It's wonderful to learn that Mr. Chartrand intends to rid the downtown of diesel engines. It's really GREAT. Finally, the total and complete chaos that occurs on Albert and Slater street due to the nearly 200 DIESEL buses/hour will be eliminated. We will finally have a proper trunk and feeder transit system.

I'm also glad to learn that downtown businesses, hotels and telecommunications service providers will soon be replacing all their large delivery trucks, and emergency generators with some kind of natural gas or hydrogen-fuel-cell based systems.

Oh? was that not your plan Mr. Chartrand?

I don't think that everybody agrees that you have to have two systems. Not only do you not have to have two systems to start, if we decided to convert part of the system to electric, we could do that incrementally, running both kinds of vehicles on the same tracks.

The city has said that EVEN WITH the proposed billion dollar (the costs are already out of control, and will get worse) electric toy train system, they expect to force over 300 buses/hour to deal with expanding demand in transit.

The reality is that single diesel light rail vehicle such as the Talent has about the same emissions foot print of two of our current DIESEL articulated buses.

The only real problem with using diesel light rail, is that it would cost 1/10 as much. That means 1/10 as much money for consultants. That means Mr. Chartrand would be king of a castle, 1/10 the size.

Michael R.

Feb. 4, 2006 - Dear Mr. O'Mara:

I wish to comment on two aspects of the Ministry's Review.

1. This document should have been made more readily available. It should have been published on a web site. I spoke with Mr. Michael Harrison on January 24 and was promised two copies in the mail. I have yet to receive them. Also, the Ministry should, in this and any other request for comments from the public, provide an e-mail address to submit comments.

2. The Review sets out a process for selection of the location of a Maintenance Yard and would require only an after-the-fact report on the outcome. This is less than an Addendum process proposed in the Environmental Assessment report. The Ministry should exercise more oversight in this matter, in conformity with section 6.2 (3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. Moreover, while the process set out in the Review allows for public involvement, this is being subverted by City staff. The Ward Councillor informs us that Step 1, the formation of a Public Working Group, will not take place until the end of February, while the contract for the project is expected to be awarded in April. Clearly, staff wants to do its work without the nuisance of public involvement and then just go through the motions of conforming with the Review.

This is particularly unsatisfactory because the preliminary evaluation of the three alternatives set out in the EA is incomplete in significant respects. Nor is it a secret that staff wants to proceed with the Lester Road site.

Gaps in the comparison of sites found in the EA include:

- insufficient documentation of the amount and variety of wildlife that is found on the Lester site;

- failure to recognize the significance of the milkweed field, feeding ground for Monarch butterflies;

- insufficient appreciation of the recreational use made of the open space east and west of the rail line next to the Airport Parkway;

- failure to recognize that there will be much activity in the Yard during the night, making it impossible to respect the City's noise by-law;

- insufficient appreciation of the ecological significance of the Medeola Woods east of the rail line at the Lester site;

- lack of detailed assessment of the wetlands on and around the Lester Road site and absence of recognition of the federal policy on wetland conservation;

- incomplete appreciation of the assets available at the Walkley site, including storage capacity for at least 200 light rail cars, a facility to turn trains and a location suitable for serving both the north-south and future east-west LRT.

I urge the Ministry to exercise closer oversight over the selection of a Maintenance Yard for this project.

Sincerely,

Erwin D.

Feb. 3, 2006 - Dear Laurel Broten

This whole light rail proposal is being pushed through too quickly, without any sobering second thought.

Why build a Maintenance Yard on greenspace when an existing yard is only 1 km away?

Why are they planning 2 or 3 Maintenance Yards to support the lines, instead of thinking ahead and strategically planning for only one?

Why do they want Electric and not Diesel? Diesel only has tracks at ground level. Electric trains have overhead lines and supporting poles... what will those grids do to our city's skyline? Plus we have enough problems in Ottawa in summer with brown-outs. Does this mean we won't be able to close our coal-powered plants?

Why are you putting the tracks in the middle of greenspace? Why not go directly to the Airport on the N/S line and then onto Leitrim? Instead they have an offshoot to the airport that they can't afford to build so it was dropped from the plan. Yet the Airport connection will actually make the train profitable instead of only being used at rush hour. Does the Airport Authority not want to lose parking revenues? Is it the Cab Companies that don't want to lose business? Where else is the pressure coming from?

Why is this EA being rubber stamped even though it is full of errors?

Please, stop this plan until after the November election. Chiarelli just wants construction started and ribbons cut to say how wonderful he is. We need an unbiased Environmental Assessment. We are the people stuck living in this City... we have to fight City Hall, otherwise we'll end up with another giant carillon and glass teepee that stands absolutely empty.

Lucia A.

Feb 2, 2006 - Dear Mr. O'Meara,

... I am writing to describe substantial concerns that I and others in Ottawa continue to have with the subject proposed light rail transit project in general, with the City of Ottawa’s Environmental Assessment of it, and with the draft MOE review of the EA.

The bald reality is that key project decisions have been taken – such as planning to replace the diesel trains used by the current O-Train with electric trains, placing the proposed train maintenance facility in what is currently greenspace when a brownfield site is available, having trains use already congested downtown streets instead of having an underground railway line, and simply ignoring the need for rapid transit service between Ottawa and Gatineau – with no documented engineering rationale, and without effective community consultation.

... surely citizen-taxpayers have a right to see the bases for major investments of public funds being based on sound analyses by qualified professionals. From this perspective, I cannot accept that the MOE staff, also anonymously, can simply accept anonymous assertions by City of Ottawa staff, whose sources aren’t traceable.

That my concerns with the current process are generally shared was confirmed this week in an informal poll conducted by Radio Station CFRA. As described in the attached report of the poll results over 90% of those who responded agree with the statement: “No, there is too much secrecy about cost, and the route is questionable.”

A core objective of the EA process is ensuring community involvement and support for infrastructure projects. This has simply not occurred to-date in the subject project: Carleton University staff and students, and other users, have not been consulted on the currently-planned over- one-year shutdown of the successful O-Train service, heritage advocates have not been consulted on the proposed demolition of heritage buildings to build a surface train station, downtown businesses continue to have major concerns, and just about every transit advocate that I know, who doesn’t have a contractual link with the City of Ottawa, has major concerns with what City staff are proposing..

...Also, I suggest that it is most important to note that City staff have not to-date demonstrated how interrupting the current East-West buses that transit downtown by an electric street-car line from the south – one that doesn't extend into Gatineau - will increase transit usage in Ottawa.

...I could go on, but I would like to end with what I see as a well-founded and reasonable request: please do not have the EA signed-off by your Minister until you see it demonstrated that the City of Ottawa – Council, staff, and residents – have reached a solid consensus on an affordable investment in light rail transit, one that will lead to a system that will be cost-effective, transparently-planned, minimally impact the human and natural environment, and truly does what everyone wants – substantially grow transit ridership in Ottawa.

David G.

Feb 1, 2006

I have spoken to CP Rail's Real Estate Sales Manager for Ontario, he has said that CP is willing to sell Walkley Yard to the City and that he does not see any problem in using it for the LRT maintenance facility. Any contamination is relatively minor. He did say that the turning track could be reinstated and confirmed that the yard is double-ended. He did not see a problem with connections to the north-south line, even if the LRT line is elevated where it crosses the east-west line.

David Jeanes - Transport 2000

Feb. 1, 2006 - Fans of preserving greenspace:

In my usual paranoid, cynical, devious, Machiavellian way of coming up with unlikely scenarios, try this on as a possible argument why Walkley Yard would be "no good" as the place to store & service the electric LRT vehicles.

"They" will say, "The existing shop at Walkley yard is nearly two kilometres from the main line. To use it as the maintenance facility instead of the Green space site that is right on the line, would require an additional 2 km. of poles and overhead wire, which would be horrendously expensive."

To which I would answer, "Well! That sort of shows up one of the big weaknesses of ELECTRIC Light Rail, now doesn't it? You can't extend it anywhere, without having to always spend more bucks to put up more poles and wire. Kindda demonstrates the advantages of DIESEL Light Rail, wouldn't ya say??!!"

Tim L.

Jan 27, 2006.

... I took a walk yesterday afternoon with a resident who knows those woods like the back of his hand. And while I’ve been through there a hundred or more times myself, he showed me the Coyote dens, fox dens, deer hides, foundations from 18th century homesteads, well, cellars, remnants of old sugar bush tapping, etc. The city is intent on clear cutting for the purpose of an industrial use, some of the oldest forest land in the region, home to a myriad of ecosystems that rely on it for food, given that urban sprawl is taking over the spaces to the south of the airport, what is to become of these animals? Every year, local scout and guide troops rely on this space for their awareness and training. I served this country for 20 years and lived all over it (every coast including the Artic) and only in Newfoundland and British Columbia would you find such large swaths of urban forest. We should feel fortunate, even proud of the fact that this city plays host to greenspaces of this diversity.

You cannot begin to understand the frustration we feel over the fact that 4 communities of this city seem to have to waste considerable time fighting for something that frankly we should not have to fight for.

To do away with this greenspace on a whim, yes optically it appears to be a whim, is a disservice to the entire region, especially given every level of Governments commitment to preserving greenspaces and the environment and their commitments to reuse brownfields (read Walkley site).

At the end of the day, all we can count on is that our elected officials do the reasonable thing; sacrificing a protected greenspace to create another brownfield, 3km away from a perfectly useable rail yard is certainly not reasonable in my opinion. Hence the reason we would like to see the cost estimates for each site and the technical assessment criteria.

Peter H.

Jan 25, 2006

Please read Dalton McGuinty's letter responding to our concerns. Letter

I sense from your article that the commitment of 200 million by the liberals, intended to fund the North South LRT Project will remain untouched? Correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, if the funding for the East-West link is undermined by the change in Governments, would it not be a good idea for the City to reflect on the barrage of advice it has received with regard to the use of diesel vice electric, that could see a reduction in costs to approximately 3.5 million per kilometer from 20-30 million per km for electric.

We have an opportunity here to fund both from the original envelope of funding if the City were to use its collective grey matter and also leverage fully the Walkley raid yard which serves both line, vice building new yards.

Jan 22, 2006

Alan (Cutler) just called me to note he has been doing additional reading and investigation into the Federal responsibilities with regard to the N/S LRT Project funding. He noted two area s he indicated, once elected, that he will investigate:

Jan 20, 2006

Thanks very much for sharing your concerns with me. The information and links you sent along really helped make sense of the situation since the Ottawa-south all candidates debate on January 18, 2006 where two members of the community raised your concerns with us.

As Ottawa expands over the coming years I don't believe it makes sense to sacrifice our much needed and enjoyed parks and green spaces in order to sustain our infrastructure. We need smarter solutions that are more forward looking. So while I look forward to the expansion of the light rail system, I wholeheartedly endorse your view that the existing Walkley Rd site is the best place to locate the maintenance and storage yard.

I was particularly concerned about the problem highlighted in the Environmental Assessment Study Recommendations of contaminants in the environment at the Walkley Rd. site. If the environmental pollution was a result of CP Rail's operations on the site, then I fail to see the sense in exposing our remaining green spaces to that same kind of risk. Are you aware of any plans to address the issue of environmental contamination at the site? Personally, I would like the see the maintenance yard located at the Walkley Rd. site, but I would also want to see a plan to secure integrity of the environment there. ...Thanks again for bringing the matter to my attention Mr. Hillier. If there's anymore help I can be, please don't hesitate to contact my office. I'll be sure to send you copies of my correspondence and I hope you'll keep us up to date on your progress. It would be a sincere displeasure to lose anymore of our green spaces - I know what they mean to the communities that surround them and I have an appreciation for the people who enjoy even the smallest patch of green in our city. It is in the best interests of Ottawa-south's community to locate the maintenance and storage yard of the light rail transit project at its existing site.

Henri Sader - NDP candidate, Ottawa-South.

Happy New Year! Thank you for your e-mail. I will consider your comments carefully as they pertain to the building of N-S Light Rail. There are more opportunities for Council to question staff as we continue this process.

As for the storage and maintenance facility, in mid Dec 2005, several dates were tentatively selected to hold a public information session regarding the selection of the storage and maintenance facility for the North-South Light Rail Project. On the 23 Dec 2005, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) issued a Notice of Completion of the Ministry Review of the Environmental Assessment for the Project. In that review, the Ministry set out a public process for use in determining the location of the maintenance and storage yard. That process is outlined as follows:

In order to follow the MOE's process, the meetings that were tentatively scheduled were deferred. Work is underway to set up the Public Working Group. I expect to be contacted in the near future by staff from Marshall
Macklin Monaghan, consultants to the City on the North-South Light Rail Project, to discuss the composition of the Public Working Group. Timelines and schedules will follow in due course.

Also, I did check Lucia's website and I will continue to monitor this situation. With regards,

"We've received last week from the province their initial review and assessment of the EA," beamed City of Ottawa director of economic development and strategic projects Réjean Chartrand. "And that initial assessment fully supports the city's direction on every aspect of the light rail program.
"We need to move forward and this really gives the city great confidence to move ahead, because the approval of the EA process is a significant milestone," he continued, adding that residents are free to debate the results with the city until Feb. 3.

... Mr. Chartrand, too, is insistent the project will go ahead as planned now that it's gotten a provincial green light and positive EA. "We had a very exhaustive consultation process over the summer," he said. "And I think it's fair to say that the great majority of businesspeople are comfortable with the direction that the city took."

excerpt from an interview by Réjean Chartrand, Director Economic Development & Strategic Projects, (613) 580-2424 ext. 21696, Rejean.Chartrand@ottawa.ca given to the Ottawa Business Journal - http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/285187337931078.php

Please phone and write to Mr. Chartrand... and let him know that the great majority of us are NOT happy with putting a Maintenance Yard on Greenspace!

I am the resident that prompted Jim Donnelly to initiate the subject article in the Ottawa Business Journal. He has my thanks for a fair piece.

However, as a representative of the City of Ottawa, you Sir do not. Perhaps to the public at large your quips regarding "an exhaustive consultation process over the summer" and "And I think it's fair to say that the great majority of businesspeople are comfortable with the direction that the city took." really do not fit the spirit of an article intent on identifying a flawed process. I'm absolutely thrilled that businesspeople are comfortable with the City direction. However, given that the affected taxpayers in the affected area (note I said area) are certainly extremely uncomfortable. For you to merely note we are free to debate the issue until Feb 3 is a slap in the face to some very concerned people.

...This is a valuable project to the city and especially the Mayor, who is intent on keeping a tight timeline in order that this line goes in on schedule. I can assure you, that the residents of Emerald Woods, Emerald Gate, West Bridle Path and others are very committed to ensuring that the City's choice with regard to this yard will be focused on reminding the City, the Province and the Federal Government of their commitment to protecting the environment. We are truly looking forward to engaging you further, during public consultation, in preparation for submission to the transportation committee and any by any other means available to us.

Mr. Little, I am a transit advocate and user. I live in Westboro. I was a supporter of the O-train pilot, and I use it once or twice a week (I work from home most days, but have customers in the south end). There are however, significant problems with the proposed N-S light rail proposal from staff.

I believe that the council has been lied to and mislead by staff and their consultants. We are about to waste $750M.

I would rather have no further transit "improvements", then the proposed disaster. Please vote against the light rail as proposed. The plan can not be fixed....

Based on my preliminary reading of the information I currently have, my concerns would be (limited only to the concerns about the Lester site and not all LRT plans in Ottawa):

* Whether environmental concerns have been weighted in the decision with the same relative importance that residents, and all those who will be paying for it, would assign.

* Whether loss of the current use of the Lester site by local residents has been adequately taken into account.

* Whether there has been full and timely disclosure of the facts relating to the suitability of the nominated sites including actual and projected costs and expansion requirements, and whether the nominated sites were the only available options.

* Whether all guidelines at the municipal, provincial, and federal level have been satisfied for each nominated site. (eg: zoning laws which prompted residents to call the site a "marshalling yard.")

Obviously, this matter is almost exclusively municipal in jurisdiction and implementation, the only federal aspect being the funding.

If elected, I will meet with all levels of government to properly come up to speed on the issue, something I can't do as a private citizen or in the time available before the election. Then I will work to make federal money contingent upon a proper and productive consultation after a fair hearing of the facts with those affected.

...The Environmental Assessment states that the Lester site, along with the Leitrim site (#3), has the greatest potential for direct/footprint impacts on vegetation features and natural areas. A Train Marshalling Yard would devastate the wild-life and vegetation in the area and destroy a natural area used by the nearby residents....

There is great urgency in dealing with this situation, as the city is pushing through many Light Rail issues without proper consultation with the communities affected. I urge you to look into this matter, for to lose a precious green space is something that cannot be reversed and will have a highly negative impact on our community.

As far as I am concerned, the whole proposal, including matters like the proposed location of maintenance yards, has been ill-thought out from the start. The whole scheme is replete with incompetence and foolishness. I would perhaps suggest that anyone with concerns about the project - whether the problem is routing, motive power proposed or maintenance yard locations, etc. - that they get in contact with David Jeans at the local Transport 2000 branch on Bronson Ave.

Rod T. (Greenspace Alliance)

... Opposed to using Lester site as Maintenance and Storage Yard because of the adverse impact on milkweed and monarch butterfly numbers...

Cheryl D.

It is recognized that the Common Milkweed is the primary host plant for the Monarch Butterfly.... (it) is actually listed as a noxious weed because it can be a very difficult weed to control in many field crops thereby causing significant reductions in crop yield and quality...

City of Ottawa - Environmental Assessment

I am particularly incensed (as are many of your constituents!) that the City is proposing to use greenspace for a rail maintenance facility when the existing Walkley rail yard can be used. This is but a example of the myopic mindset that is pervading this project.

While I support in principle the LRT project the amount of public money that is proposed to be spent is ridiculous!. More cost effective options exist but the city has chosen to ignore these and has decided to proceed unabated.

I fear that the residents of the City, your constituency and the province will ultimately pay for a LRT debacle that will be similar in scope to the infamous Olympic stadium fiasco but geographically spread over a far wider area.

I would specifically request that you or your ministers withhold any further funding of this project until the City has conducted effective public consultation and adopts cost effective and rational solutions to the public transit issues in your constituency and City.

Richard M.

... the proposed favorite Lester location violates original NCC vision of a Green Belt as well as the Cities own 20/20 vision on several fronts including those related to the biodiversity of the area, forest health, and also importantly the impacts of urban sprawl that undermine the adjacent communities quality of life.

I would point out this statement, directly taken from the City’s website in its consideration of the public interest with regard to urban sprawl, the city points out in Annex 2 (http://city.ottawa.on.ca/city_services/planningzoning/2020/enviro/annex2_en.shtml) that “communities are concerned with protecting current neighbourhood character and green spaces. Finding the appropriate balance between density, intensification and liveable communities through urban design and good planning is a critical challenge facing the City and our communities.”

Indeed this is true and given that the city has identified two alternative locations, it should be held accountable to uphold its own intentions and use the Walkley yard versus interrupting the greenspace, wildlife, and way of life for literally thousands of people in adjacent communities.

Again, as a community, we are incensed by the lack of public consultation, foresight and plain common sense that has gone into facilitating this fast track project of the City of Ottawa. Know well, that residents by and large have little recourse during these proceedings, which are often scheduled far too late into the process and optically appear as a means to placate sporadic complaints.

The communities of Emerald Woods, Emerald Gate and others implore your assistance by removing the Lester site as an alternative for the Maintenance yard for the North-South Corridor Light Rail Transit Project.

The inventory mapping we have produced of the City's green spaces divides the land into two functional categories and maps as follows:

We have attempted to further breakdown these functions into three levels that identify the extent to which a particular piece of land contributes to the function. Obviously some land contributes to both functions and can appear on both maps with differing levels of contribution.

The road corridor accommodating the Airport Parkway is identified as contributing to Accessible Open Space for most of its length. Primary contributions in this category include parks and similar spaces. The primary purpose of this corridor is the parkway but it has characteristics that allow it to also be considered and used as greenspace. Not withstanding this some parts of this corridor are also identified as having a Primary role as natural areas. The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study identified the forested parts of this corridor as potential Urban Natural Features. The City is endeavouring to protect as many of these areas as possible.

The linear nature of this corridor also makes it a candidate as part of the City's Greenspace Network.

Bruce Finlay, City of Ottawa