Public Transit in Clarence-Rockland:
A Conversation Worth Having
Looking at the opportunities, challenges and questions we need to consider.
Public transit is an issue that comes up regularly in conversations about the future of Clarence-Rockland.
For many residents, particularly those who commute to Ottawa or Gatineau, having another transportation option could make a real difference. Public transit could also provide greater mobility for seniors, students, people who do not drive and others who may not always have access to a vehicle.
But establishing a public transit service in Clarence-Rockland is a complex issue.
If Council decides to establish such a service, we need to think beyond simply putting buses on the road. We need to consider where the service should operate, whom it should serve, how it should connect with other transportation systems, what it will cost, and how we will make sure it remains financially and operationally sustainable over the long term.
I don’t claim to have all the answers. But I believe this is an important conversation for our community, and I want to share some of the questions I think we need to consider.
This isn’t simply a yes-or-no question
There has been discussion about whether public transit should be put to residents in the form of a question on a municipal election ballot.
Under the Municipal Elections Act, a municipal council can put a question to voters when the matter falls within the municipality’s authority and can be implemented by the municipality. The question must be clear, precise and neutral, with the answer limited to “Yes” or “No.”
The difficulty is that public transit is not really a yes-or-no issue.
A question such as: “Do you want a public transit service in the City of Clarence-Rockland? Yes or No?”
does not tell Council what residents actually want.
Do they want a service throughout the municipality or primarily in the urban area?
Should the priority be commuting to Ottawa, Gatineau or the Trim Road LRT station?
How frequently should buses operate?
What hours should the service cover? What would residents be willing to pay?
And perhaps most importantly, what level of municipal spending would residents be prepared to support?
For that reason, I believe meaningful public consultation would be more useful than a simple yes-or-no question.
A community survey or public meeting could allow residents to explain what they would actually use, where they would want to go, what times matter to them and what concerns they may have about the cost of the service.
What would a public transit system look like?
Before deciding whether to establish a service, we need to determine what that service would actually look like.
There are several possibilities.
Would we create a municipal transit service? Would we contract the service to a private provider? Or would a public-private partnership make more sense?
Would the service cover the entire municipality, including communities outside the urban area, or would it initially focus on the urban area?
A pilot project could be one way to answer some of these questions.
Rather than immediately committing the municipality to a permanent system, we could establish a pilot service, measure ridership and operating costs, gather feedback from residents and use that information to determine whether and how the service should expand.
This would allow us to learn from actual experience before making a much larger long-term commitment.
Where would the buses go?
One of the most important questions is where residents actually need to go.
For many commuters, the primary destinations would likely be Ottawa and Gatineau. Others may be interested in connecting with the Trim Road LRT station.
If the Trim Road station becomes an important destination, could an agreement be reached with OC Transpo to make that connection easier and more affordable for Clarence-Rockland residents?
There are also other possibilities worth considering.
Could a service connect Clarence-Rockland with Cumberland? Could park-and-ride facilities be established through agreements with local businesses? Could transit routes connect residential areas with major commercial destinations?
These are the types of questions that should be answered before we decide what kind of system we need.
Public transit and County Road 17
Transit also needs to be considered together with our broader transportation infrastructure.
County Road 17 is the primary east-west arterial connection between Clarence-Rockland and Ottawa. The Ottawa 174 continues that connection toward the urban core.
If congestion remains on this corridor, simply adding buses will not necessarily solve the problem.
In fact, buses carrying multiple passengers could still be caught in the same congestion as everyone else.
This is why I believe the future of public transit needs to be part of the larger discussion about the 17/174 corridor.
If additional capacity is eventually created on this route, one possibility would be to dedicate an additional lane to public transit, taxis, vehicles carrying two or more passengers and emergency vehicles.
Such a lane could potentially operate westbound in the morning and eastbound in the afternoon and evening, when commuter traffic is heaviest.
This type of approach could make transit more competitive with the automobile while also helping move more people using the same road infrastructure.
But there are larger regional questions as well.
Ottawa has its own transportation priorities and planning policies. Any future changes to the Ottawa 174 would therefore require cooperation between municipalities and the United Counties of Prescott and Russell.
If we want to make the case for improvements to this corridor, we also need to demonstrate how those improvements benefit Ottawa and the broader region—not just Clarence-Rockland.
Our residents commute to Ottawa every day, work in Ottawa businesses and contribute to the economy of the capital region. That relationship needs to be part of the conversation.
Who would use the service?
Another important consideration is understanding who public transit would actually serve.
Some transit users are “captive” riders—they do not have access to a vehicle or cannot drive. For these residents, transit is not simply an alternative to driving. It may be their only practical transportation option.
At the same time, if our goal is to reduce congestion, we need to attract people who currently drive.
That means the service needs to be convenient, reliable and competitive with the automobile.
If buses are infrequent, routes are inconvenient or fares are too high, many commuters will simply continue driving.
We should also consider carpooling and other transportation options as part of the broader solution.
And we need to consider what happens beyond our municipal boundaries.
Growth is occurring throughout Prescott-Russell. Communities such as Wendover are also experiencing population growth, and additional commuters may be using County Road 17 and the Ottawa 174.
If we invest in transit but do not address the broader regional transportation system, some of the benefits could be offset by continued growth in automobile traffic.
How much would it cost?
This is perhaps the most important question.
Public transit is not simply the cost of purchasing buses.
A municipal system would require drivers and administrative staff, facilities to store and maintain vehicles, maintenance equipment, fare collection technology, insurance, fuel or charging infrastructure and a plan for replacing vehicles as they reach the end of their useful life.
If electric buses are used, charging infrastructure and the capacity of the electrical system would also need to be considered.
If the municipality contracts the service to a private provider, these costs do not disappear. They are incorporated into the provider’s price, along with its operating costs and profit margin.
The municipality would therefore need to understand both the initial capital costs and the ongoing annual operating costs.
And we need to be realistic about the fact that buses eventually have to be replaced.
The question is not simply:
“Can we afford to start a public transit system?”
It is:
“Can we afford to operate and maintain that system for the next 10, 20 or 30 years?”
That is the level of long-term planning I believe Council needs to undertake.
How would we pay for it?
Fares would cover only part of the cost of a public transit system.
We would need to determine how much users should pay and how that fare would interact with the cost of using Ottawa’s transit system.
If a resident has to pay one fare to get from Clarence-Rockland to Trim and another fare to continue into Ottawa, the total cost could discourage people from using the service.
This is why discussions with OC Transpo and other partners would be important.
We should also explore provincial and federal funding opportunities that could help establish or expand the service.
Development charges may also have a role to play in supporting infrastructure related to growth, but we should not assume that development charges can fund the entire system.
Ultimately, residents need to understand what portion of the cost would be supported by fares, development charges, other levels of government and municipal taxation.
Before making a commitment, Council should have a clear financial picture.
Start with the infrastructure we already have
There is also a broader planning principle that I think is important.
Before building new infrastructure, we should make the best possible use of the infrastructure we already have.
That means looking at existing roads, commercial parking lots, municipal facilities and other infrastructure that could potentially support a transit system.
For example, agreements with large commercial properties could potentially allow the creation of park-and-ride locations without requiring the municipality to build every facility itself.
This type of partnership could help reduce the initial cost of establishing a system.
Transit should serve the whole community
We should also consider accessibility from the beginning.
If we establish a public transit service, adapted transportation should be part of the discussion rather than something considered later.
Seniors and residents with disabilities need reliable transportation options as well.
We should also ask what local businesses think.
Transit can help employees get to work, make commercial areas more accessible and potentially increase the number of people who can reach local businesses without a vehicle.
A well-designed system should therefore be considered not only as a transportation service, but also as part of our economic and community infrastructure.
Marc's perspective
I believe Clarence-Rockland should continue exploring public transit.
But I also believe we need to be realistic about what we are committing to.
Public transit can provide important benefits, but it is a long-term municipal service. Once established, residents will expect it to be reliable and available—not only when times are good, but during economic downturns, emergencies and other major disruptions.
The experience of COVID-19 is a good reminder that transportation systems need to be resilient enough to withstand unexpected events.
For me, the first step should be understanding what our residents actually need.
I would support meaningful public consultation, followed by a detailed analysis of potential routes, ridership, costs, funding sources and operating models.
A pilot project could then allow us to test the service, measure the results and make decisions based on actual data.
I also believe public transit should not be considered in isolation.
It needs to be part of a larger transportation strategy that includes County Road 17 and the Ottawa 174, connections to Ottawa’s transit network, park-and-ride facilities, carpooling and the continued growth of our communities.
We don’t need to have every answer today.
But before committing taxpayers to a permanent transit system, we should make sure we understand what we are building, who it will serve and how we will sustain it.
Public transit is worth discussing.
The question is not simply whether we want buses.
The real question is what kind of transportation system do we want for Clarence-Rockland, and how can we build one that serves our residents for the long term?
That’s a conversation I believe we need to have.