The fact that the PWG’s evaluation
was heavily favouring Walkley was due to several reasons. It was
evident to me, from the outset, that Walkley would win because
of the makeup of the group – resident community associations, environmental
and naturalist organizations making up 80% of the group.
The fact that the public opinion
favours Walkley should be no surprise – we want it put to proper use,
and reserve green uses for Ottawa’s limited greenspace.
Even the EA describes the “ideal
site” as having the following characteristics, characteristcs that
largely describe Walkley Yard:
• Close proximity/access to N-S line;
• Conveniently accessible by trains from the E-W line for heavy repairs;
• Existing rail yard (benefits of having the required infrastructure and minimizing the number of new contaminants potentially added to the system);
• Away from core natural areas and sensitive ecosystems;
• Away from watercourses ;
• Away from areas with high
groundwater tables or recharge/discharge areas;
Walkley is the only choice
for a train yard. This choice was backed up by all community members,
including the those who live in the Walkley area, and James Allen from
the Ottawa Central Railway.
At the end of the PWG process, there wasn't a single objection to the recommendation we came to.
The technical team actually
favours the cost category highly as evident in their weighted scoring
on page 61 of the report. Their high importance on cost is no
surprise – they know council will also put high importance on saving
costs. But, is this the right focus for city planning? If
council always chose the cheapest option we’d be in terrible shape
– and we wouldn’t even have the current O-Train.
The cost figures presented
at the PWG were contested by members of the group – not only because
we weren’t allowed to see the cost breakdown of the figures but because
the costs for Walkley seemed high. This was confirmed from external
review.
We were told the capital costs of each site were comprised of:
We know CPRail is asking $5M
for Walkley which leaves 2.5 to 4 Million to the other components (according
to the costs in the report). I feel this difference is exaggerated
and I hope that those who do see the cost breakdown scrutinize these
components.
The Bowesville site also requires
a connecting track of a similar length and therefore the incremental
capital cost, for that component, would be about the same for both sites.
But, in terms of cost savings, we see that the Mayor and staff are fully capable of finding ways to save money in some areas of the LRT project to fund other parts of it. I applaud this effort, and suggest that the same can be done to make up the difference in cost, between Walkley and Bowesville.
The MOU between the federal,
provincial signatories and the city provides both a financial reassurance
and confirmation of project scope described in Schedule A.
It’s interesting to note
that the Walkley yard is the preferred site in the MOU, and I suspect
it a deciding factor on securing the much-needed funding from the senior
governments, since they place high importance on brownfield reuse and
preservation of greenspace.
To change the desired site from Walkley to Bowesville will require consideration and approval from these governments for the upcoming “formal agreement” to go forward.
In summary, I urge council
not to place too high an importance on cost; consider brownfield reuse
incentives that are available (and not factored in to the costs), and
keep in mind that the best location for a maintenance and storage facility
is at the center of both N-S and E-W lines.
Finally, if I may quote your
speech on Earth Day, Mr. Mayor, you said that the Environment is “the
highest priority of this council”. I sincerely hope that
this is evidenced by a council vote to preserve greenspace and reuse
the Walkley Yard.
Thank You
5-minute speech to Transportation and Economic Development Committee
May 16, 2006
613-521-1272