Rainer here is my position on the topic of the NS rail yard site selection motion before the Transportation Committee: 

• I strongly oppose the staff recommendation for Bowesville 4C and recommend abeyance of the motion until
• All cost analysis is open to full public scrutiny
• A final decision is delayed until necessary based on the construction project critical path (two or more years from now)

 

Rationale:

• A decision on the NS rail yard location does not need to be made for years and delay would have no impact on the rest of the project schedule.
• The staff’s argument is entirely based on theoretical cost differences. The assumptions and calculations they used to determine these cost have not been open to public analysis. Given that this is the only basis for not choosing Walkley and that all other analysis overwhelmingly selected Walkley, it is unacceptable that secret assumptions are used to defy the public interest.
• The degree to which the methodology has been disclosed provides evidence it is incomplete, inaccurate and misleading.
• CPR has contradicted the staff’s assumptions about capital cost purchase price and clean-up.
• Operating costs only includes selective analysis in favour of Bowesville and excludes deadhead costs that are detrimental to Bowesville. Even with all the staff’s manipulation of the costs, the operating cost difference is approximately $240,000 per year. In the scheme of the overall NS project’s operating costs, and given the degree to which the NS project is currently extravagantly over-designed, this specific cost is immaterial.
• Staff briefings to councilors made clear that “Clean up costs of Walkley is the driving force behind staff’s recommendation (Alex Cullen).” This assumption has not been publicly disclosed or open to a test of veracity.
• The significant relative capital and operating cost advantages of a Walkley yard for the East West corridor have not been included in this analysis. Indeed every other LRT network the city is planning would result in Bowesville being the most expensive location.
• The cost analysis does not consider incremental tax revenue that would come from alternative land use at Bowesville. The proposed Ottawa Sports Park is a prime example.
• The cost analysis does not include any potential funding that may be won for the reuse of a dormant brownfield site.
• The 3-5 minute headway assumptions have been used to imply additional capital and operational costs to Walkley.
• 3-5 minute headway assumptions have not been justified in either the NS EA or the Rail Yard report and, given the stated projections levels for ridership, implies unacceptably inefficient levels of LRT operation from both a capital and operating cost basis.
• To then use this assumption to drive the cost analysis in favour of Bowesville is a flawed analysis. A ten-minute headway rate almost entirely removes the operating and capital cost differences between Walkley and Bowesville.

 
 

Stephen Fanjoy, Ward 2 representative on the East West LRT EA