City of Ottawa

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The LRT wasn't a huge increase in capital spending for Transit? Was rush hour service cut at the same time coming out of the bus strike? That is in the past and pre-pandemic so leave that argument aside.

I think you are right about the general sentiment and even off peak cuts (along with especially reliability issues) do make someone who was driving 2 days a week and now needs to be in the office think nah transit can't be trusted right now. The inertia of driving is hard to overcome.

But back to the real 2024 world a 37% transit tax increase is going to forego those cuts. Is anyone really claiming that is going to restore confidence? Or should we just throw more money at the problem until everyone realizes their car based lifestyle is an abonination and starts living an urban life buying their groceries on the bus?

But throwing money at the problem tends to be the only solution that actually works. Studies across Canada and North America show that investment in transit = increase in ridership. Leadership in this city likes to pretend that Ottawa is so unique that this doesn't apply to us, when everything else says otherwise, including data going back to the 2011 transit cuts here.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

But throwing money at the problem tends to be the only solution that actually works. Studies across Canada and North America show that investment in transit = increase in ridership. Leadership in this city likes to pretend that Ottawa is so unique that this doesn't apply to us, when everything else says otherwise, including data going back to the 2011 transit cuts here.

Sure if the goal is as many transit users as possible that is absolutely the right approach. Free fare would increase usage and be the most equitable too. Rate payers have a different view though.

[rocketphish]

Controversial developer donation debate returning to council
Pilot project would allow councillors to solicit contributions under stringent rules

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Oct 01, 2024 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 6 hours ago

Ottawa councillors are hoping they might finally have a workable solution to a fraught issue: whether they can negotiate with developers to get donations for the city.

It's a debate that dragged on for months after Coun. Shawn Menard worked out a deal with Groupe Katasa that would have provided $300,000 to fund traffic calming and affordable housing in his ward. Menard said his office never pressured Katasa, which provided the money as a "voluntary contribution."

But opponents said the deal raised a perceived conflict of interest, since councillors weigh in on developer applications. The mayor pushed to ban the practice outright, before council punted the whole question to a working group this summer.

Now, that working group is back with its proposal: a pilot project that would allow councillors to solicit or facilitate donations under a stringent set of rules.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ncil-1.7338234

[DTcrawler]

From the article:

Cash donations would go into a city-wide account managed by staff

Ah yes, the whole reason this entire debacle began in the first place. Suburban councillors got jealous an urban ward got money and wanted a piece of the pie.

[rocketphish]

Why Mark Sutcliffe's 'fairness for Ottawa' campaign should target Doug Ford too
Ford, who wants to spend billions and billions on a traffic tunnel under Highway 401 in Toronto, has been badly shortchanging Ottawa on transit money, two analyses have found.

Mohammed Adam, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 03, 2024 • Last updated 56 minutes ago • 3 minute read

In the midst of Mayor Mark Sutcliffe’s “fairness for Ottawa” campaign, Ontario Premier Doug popped up to promise a multi-billion-dollar tunnel under Highway 401 in the Greater Toronto Area to make driving easier and more comfortable for suburban commuters.

The tunnel would go from Brampton to Scarborough, a distance of about 55 kilometres, and one expert put the cost at $1 billion a kilometre. Ford, however, assures all of us that it won’t cost “hundreds of billions of dollars,” for which, I guess, provincial taxpayers in Ottawa should be grateful.

But think about this, Ottawa: Here is a premier who can’t find money for transit in the city, but who can conjure up billions to dig a hole in the ground for cars in the GTA. As I thought about what this says regarding Ford’s attitude towards Ottawa, I read a revealing analysis of Ontario’s transit funding by Coun. Glen Gower, chair of the transit commission. I then reread the city’s financial report presented to council last month, and, putting it all together, began to wonder if Sutcliffe and his council are aiming their ire over the lack of funding at the right government.

There is no doubt the main reason for Ottawa’s financial crisis is the soaring cost of public transit, not payments-in-lieu-of-taxes. Transit is what has thrown the city into a financial tailspin. The city is now shouldering 56 per cent of LRT costs that were to be shared three ways, with municipal, provincial and federal governments each paying one-third. Then, there is the $120-million deficit accrued largely because of a pandemic ridership slump, which led to talk of apocalyptic 2025 property tax increases. And OC Transpo’s long-term deficit, which was projected to be $6.6 billion by 2048 — if you can think that far ahead — has now grown to $8.9 billion.

Can the federal government help with more transit funding? Sure, it can, and should. But remember that transit is the direct responsibility of the provincial government, which must be held accountable.

Aside from money for the irrational tunnel, the GTA gets billions of dollars year after year for transit, while Ottawa gets small change in comparison. In November 2023, Toronto got a one-time payment of $330 million, and another three-year $330-million operating support subsidy. And Ottawa? In March, it got $543 million over 10 years for road improvements and a new interchange on Highway 417 at Barnsdale Road. No money for transit.

But according to Gower’s analysis, the average household in Ottawa has contributed $5,250 through provincial taxes to transit projects in the GTA in the last few years. In contrast, the same household has contributed about $285 in provincial taxes to Ottawa transit projects. For every dollar of Ottawa’s provincial taxes that pays for transit in the city, the analysis shows more than $18 goes to a project in the GTA.

Clearly, a big reason for our financial crisis is that our provincial taxes are paying for transit in GTA, while we in Ottawa are saddled with huge costs.

Which leads to the question: Why are the mayor and council not making this provincial neglect the central argument of their fairness campaign? Where is the pressure on Ontario to treat Ottawa half as decently as it treats the GTA? Who is beating the drum for fairness from the Ontario government?

In case you thought Ottawa just likes to whine about transit funding, the Ontario Financial Accountability Office just made our case. In a recent study, it said Ottawa will see the steepest decline of anywhere in the province next year in terms of per-resident transit subsidies.

“The FAO projects that the Ottawa economic region will experience the largest reduction in per-resident subsidies from $59.61 in 2022-23 to $31.91 in 2024-25, primarily due to the conclusion of the Safe Restart Agreement,” the report said. But Toronto subsidies keep rising.

Perhaps, it is time for the mayor and council to rethink their strategy, and redirect their fire at the right target.

Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa journalist and commentator. Reach him at nylamiles48@gmail.com

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/ad...-doug-ford-too

[rocketphish]

Ottawa's idling bylaw shows council is mired in trivial issues
Haggling over how many minutes a car can idle, or how many minutes between LRT trains, prevents Ottawa Council from focusing on what matters.

Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 08, 2024 • Last updated 24 minutes ago • 3 minute read

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The question is an old metaphor for wasting time on things that have no real consequence. Perhaps it’s time to update it to ask how many Ottawa city councillors can dance on the head of a pin. Even more to the point, how many minutes should the dancing occupy?

City councillors have become obsessed with micro-managing policies literally down to the minute, apparently confident that they can determine the precise number of minutes to produce the optimum result.

Two recent examples are the city’s new anti-idling bylaw and council’s tortuous debate on the frequency of off-peak LRT service.

Let’s start with the anti-idling bylaw. We’re speaking here of idling cars, of course, not idling people. That’s perfectly acceptable. The city had an anti-idling bylaw dating back to 2007. It limited vehicle idling when it was particularly hot or cold, but not the rest of the time. The new bylaw is somewhat stricter when it comes to permitted idling minutes, but the details are unimportant.

The real question is what could possibly have been achieved by additional restrictions on idling vehicles? The staff report supporting the new bylaw said the purpose is “to reduce greenhouse gases and improve local air quality in Ottawa.”

Sounds good, but by how much? The staff report says that if every light and medium-duty internal combustion engine vehicle in Ottawa reduced daily idling by two minutes, it would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 31.2 million kilograms. Holy smoke! That sounds like a lot.

Well, it sounds that way until you compare it to Ottawa’s overall transportation emissions. According to an earlier city report, the transportation sector here emitted 2,700,000 tonnes of emissions in 2019. Convert the speculative idling reduction savings to tonnes and you get 31,200 tonnes. In other words, the maximum reduction created by the anti-idling bylaw would be just over one per cent of all transportation emissions.

Even that tiny saving is unlikely to be realized. Mayor Mark Sutcliffe was quick to assure Ottawans, “We know there’s not going to be a huge amount of enforcement of this bylaw as there wasn’t much in the past either.”

There sure wasn’t. The staff report says annual average enforcement amounts to 10 verbal warnings, seven bylaw infraction notices, and 57 instances where there was no evidence of an offence.

Instead of getting caught up in how many minutes of idling would be acceptable, as councillors did, they should have asked themselves why they were passing a bylaw that will achieve next to nothing and won’t be much enforced. As a follow-up, how much time and money was spent on the staff report?

Can you think of a similar waste of time and money? If so, please forward your idea to your city councillor. Clearly, they are keen on this sort of thing.

Councillors didn’t acquit themselves much more rationally last month when some tried to change a staff plan to cut the frequency of LRT service from every five minutes to every 10 during off-peak times. The whole thing was small potatoes. Staff say the change would save $1.6 million a year, which is something, but not much compared to next year’s forecasted $120-million transit deficit. On the other hand, is waiting up to five minutes more for a train really a big deal?

Nevertheless, Coun. Jeff Leiper introduced a motion to restore the five-minute service. There was discussion of seven minutes as a compromise before councillors voted to keep the new 10-minute interval, a motion that won by a single vote.

The point, surely, is that whether the service interval is five minutes, seven minutes or 10 minutes, it will make little material difference. The lesson for councillors ought to be, if you’re debating something that involves single minutes and it’s not a life-saving service, you’re missing the big picture.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa journalist and author. Contact him at randalldenley1@gmail.com

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/de...trivial-issues

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Ottawa's idling bylaw shows council is mired in trivial issues
Haggling over how many minutes a car can idle, or how many minutes between LRT trains, prevents Ottawa Council from focusing on what matters.

Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 08, 2024 • Last updated 24 minutes ago • 3 minute read

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The question is an old metaphor for wasting time on things that have no real consequence. Perhaps it’s time to update it to ask how many Ottawa city councillors can dance on the head of a pin. Even more to the point, how many minutes should the dancing occupy?

City councillors have become obsessed with micro-managing policies literally down to the minute, apparently confident that they can determine the precise number of minutes to produce the optimum result.

Two recent examples are the city’s new anti-idling bylaw and council’s tortuous debate on the frequency of off-peak LRT service.

Let’s start with the anti-idling bylaw. We’re speaking here of idling cars, of course, not idling people. That’s perfectly acceptable. The city had an anti-idling bylaw dating back to 2007. It limited vehicle idling when it was particularly hot or cold, but not the rest of the time. The new bylaw is somewhat stricter when it comes to permitted idling minutes, but the details are unimportant.

The real question is what could possibly have been achieved by additional restrictions on idling vehicles? The staff report supporting the new bylaw said the purpose is “to reduce greenhouse gases and improve local air quality in Ottawa.”

Sounds good, but by how much? The staff report says that if every light and medium-duty internal combustion engine vehicle in Ottawa reduced daily idling by two minutes, it would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 31.2 million kilograms. Holy smoke! That sounds like a lot.

Well, it sounds that way until you compare it to Ottawa’s overall transportation emissions. According to an earlier city report, the transportation sector here emitted 2,700,000 tonnes of emissions in 2019. Convert the speculative idling reduction savings to tonnes and you get 31,200 tonnes. In other words, the maximum reduction created by the anti-idling bylaw would be just over one per cent of all transportation emissions.

Even that tiny saving is unlikely to be realized. Mayor Mark Sutcliffe was quick to assure Ottawans, “We know there’s not going to be a huge amount of enforcement of this bylaw as there wasn’t much in the past either.”

There sure wasn’t. The staff report says annual average enforcement amounts to 10 verbal warnings, seven bylaw infraction notices, and 57 instances where there was no evidence of an offence.

Instead of getting caught up in how many minutes of idling would be acceptable, as councillors did, they should have asked themselves why they were passing a bylaw that will achieve next to nothing and won’t be much enforced. As a follow-up, how much time and money was spent on the staff report?

Can you think of a similar waste of time and money? If so, please forward your idea to your city councillor. Clearly, they are keen on this sort of thing.

Councillors didn’t acquit themselves much more rationally last month when some tried to change a staff plan to cut the frequency of LRT service from every five minutes to every 10 during off-peak times. The whole thing was small potatoes. Staff say the change would save $1.6 million a year, which is something, but not much compared to next year’s forecasted $120-million transit deficit. On the other hand, is waiting up to five minutes more for a train really a big deal?

Nevertheless, Coun. Jeff Leiper introduced a motion to restore the five-minute service. There was discussion of seven minutes as a compromise before councillors voted to keep the new 10-minute interval, a motion that won by a single vote.

The point, surely, is that whether the service interval is five minutes, seven minutes or 10 minutes, it will make little material difference. The lesson for councillors ought to be, if you’re debating something that involves single minutes and it’s not a life-saving service, you’re missing the big picture.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa journalist and author. Contact him at randalldenley1@gmail.com

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/de...trivial-issues

His first point is very good but if you don't think there is much difference between 5 and 10 minute frequencies then you aren't a transit user (which is the case for all of those voting no and most of those voting yes to reducing times)

[DTcrawler]

Denley's column is trash in general but this line stood out to me.

The lesson for councillors ought to be, if you’re debating something that involves single minutes and it’s not a life-saving service, you’re missing the big picture.

I wonder what his stance would be on a road widening project where we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to shave a few minutes at best (often times just a few dozen seconds) off driving times. And that only in the short term, before induced demand kicks in and makes travel times worse than before.