North-South Light Rapid Transit (LRT) Maintenance & Storage Yard Selection

OFGAC’s Position

• OFGAC is opposed to the destruction of forests, meadows and wetlands, especially when viable alternative industrial lands are available. 
• OFGAC supports the re-use of brownfields. The Walkley Yard site would likely cause the least amount of environmental damage.
• OFGAC recommends that the City re-cycle and re-use the existing infrastructure at the Walkley rail yard.

Re-use the Walkley site

• This site had the least impact on the natural environment.
• Servicing costs would be lower.
• Compatible with existing land use.
• Closeness to existing freight line.
• No change in land use.
• City already uses site for O-Trains
• Closest to East-West Future LRT

Re-use, revitalize, re-energize

• A reality of today - and as the 3 Rs advocate - we are all urged to reduce, re-use, and recycle in our daily consumptions.
• Similarly, the Official Plan advocates the full use of existing infrastructure and to maximize urban space for sustainability.
• Urban renewal has a tremendous opportunity here, to make better use of an existing industrial site, and revitalize an area in need.

Does it make sense to you?

Destroying pristine greenspace instead of re-utilizing an existing rail yard.

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

Re-use rather than destroy

• Transportation projects in Ottawa have a habit of eating up greenspace.
• Re-use what Ottawa already has and not destroy additional greenspace.
• It makes more sense to re-use an existing rail yard than to destroy greenspace.

Questions for councillors to ask city staff

• How can it be more expensive to create a rail maintenance and storage yard on an existing rail site than on an unserviced greenspace?
• Why is the City contemplating destroying greenspace to create a rail yard when one is already available and, is conveniently located for both light rail lines?
• Why not re-use the existing Walkley rail yard?

OFGAC RECOMMENDATIONS

• Properly assess the sites: Do field surveys during different seasons.
• Natural environment reports: To stand up to peer review by independent experts.
• Cause the least amount of environmental damage: Re-use the existing infrastructure at the Walkley rail yard.

Evaluation criteria

The categories were:

• Natural environment
• Land use
• Social/Cultural
• Technical
• Transit operations
• Costs

The impact/benefit reflected for each of the sites produced a weighted scoring.

The Report on the Recommended Location of the Maintenance Yard

PWG weights assigned to the categories:

• 43% to the natural environment and land use and
• 42% to the technical, transit operations and costs
• leaving 15% for the social/cultural category.

PWG provided a balanced perspective when assigning scores. Report fails to mention this.

In COMPARISON, the Technical Group gave:

• 35% to the to the natural environment and land use,
• 50% to the technical, transit operations and costs,
• leaving 15% for the social/cultural category.

50% attributed to one side, leaving only 35% to natural environment and land use is NOT a balanced approach. The PWG has presented a balanced approach.

The Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

Does NOT support the staff recommendation that the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Transportation Committee recommend to Council approve the Bowesville site (4C) as the location for the LRT Maintenance and Storage Facility; and the initiation of property acquisition/lease arrangements for the property interests required for the construction and operation of the LRT maintenance and storage facility.