City of Ottawa

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Ottawa facing stiff competition in search for next chief planner
Toronto, Hamilton also hunting to fill the key management spot

Elyse Skura · CBC News
Posted: Jul 17, 2024 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 2 hours ago

Ontario's three biggest cities are all on the hunt for a top bureaucrat who can lead them through the challenge of meeting aggressive housing targets, during a time when experts say hiring and retaining top talent is keeping municipal leaders up at night.

Ottawa began its search for a new general manager of planning at the end of 2022, but failed to find a good fit in its first national search. Now it's trying again.

Between scouting efforts, the city shook up its bureaucracy with a new strategic initiative department that's meant to relieve some of the pressure heaped on planning chiefs from higher levels of government.

But with Toronto and Hamilton embarking on their own searches, experts say competition will be stiff — and the pressure on interim chiefs nearly unbearable.

The chief planner bears the weight of meeting mandated growth targets while ensuring a sustainable approach.

That has meant tense and time-consuming negotiations with both provincial and federal governments, along with a proposed major overhaul to the rules that govern development.

"It's such an important position right now when you think about mandates from the province around local governments needing to do their part and building more homes," explained Stacy Hushion, vice-president of consultancy firm StrategyCorp's government relations and management consulting division.

"But at the same time, there's a limited pool of talent."

Wendy Stephanson, Ottawa's city manager, is keenly aware of that challenge and said municipalities and private companies share the same pressures.

"It's everywhere," she told reporters earlier this year. "Everybody has to look at how they're recruiting."

Freed from the need to lead strategic negotiations, Ottawa's newly reshaped planning department is now "laser focused" on traditional city building, Stephanson said.

The city's planners have not only faced intense public scrutiny on major developments, including a subdivision planned far from the urban boundary and the second phase of the struggling Lansdowne Park public-private partnership, but must also navigate a constantly shifting policy environment.

Stephanson describes an environment where housing directives change almost weekly — or what Lindsay Jones, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's director of policy and government relations, calls a "perfect storm."

It "says a lot" that Ottawa and other cities have had to reorganize departments to meet external demands, she said.

"It's been really a combination of these long-term, long-standing structural issues that are the result of downloading in the 1990s, but then combined with the incredible growth pressures that municipalities are now being asked to support," Jones explained.

Ottawa-based housing policy researcher Carolyn Whitzman likewise said it's "a very confusing landscape" for planners, particularly in smaller municipalities.
As for how interim chief planners can navigate this "era of rapid change," Whitzman argued "it's almost impossible."

With the city adjusting to wave after wave of provincial legislation, managers have long been bracing for another major shift: the "grey tsunami."

Retirements have forced substantial change, with Ottawa seeing a rapid and ongoing turnover in upper management. Hushion doesn't see that changing.

"[Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System] data shows that tens of thousands of municipal employees are on track to retire anywhere between this year, over the next three years," she said.

Many are now poaching from other municipalities, added David Arbuckle, who heads the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario.

They agree the shift will require two things: a new and more flexible approach to recruitment, and a plan to better support staff with the chops to become future leaders.

While the public service was one thought of as a career for "lifers," Arbuckle said a generational shift has changed the long-term outlook of staff. So has an increasingly toxic discourse that's seen people move from attacking politicians to targeting the rank and file.

"Sometimes there's a blurring of the line between those roles. And then we've also seen a decline in civil discourse, more confrontation, more hostility towards municipal staff, primarily from the public," he said.

"That has really caused current staff to question their role. Is that something they want to be a part of?"

Hushion, who leads an annual survey of chief administrative officers across Ontario, said municipal staff worked diligently throughout the pandemic to ensure lights stayed on, garbage was picked up and toilets flushed, and "that took a toll."

While municipalities have been considered "notoriously slow to change," Hushion said there has been an acknowledgement that there needs to be creative solutions to retain people long thought of as "lifers."

She said staff need to target areas that contribute to burnout, including the "fishbowl" atmosphere and need for flexible working conditions, along with providing competitive salaries.

The city's efforts to break down silos between departments will expose staff to more program areas and help retain institutional knowledge, said Stephanson.

"Somebody else can move into another role, learn and grow specifically around the strategic projects area," she explained. "You might go off to a new job because you've got new tools in your toolkit, or you might go back to your old job, bring those things with you."

The experiment is already showing signs of progress, with the interim chief of the new strategic initiatives department, Ryan Perrault, set to take over for the retiring general manager of emergency services.

Stephanson said the focus is on stabilizing the reshuffled departments, with the recruitment process for a new planning chief set to continue through the fall.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ot...-search-for-next-chief-planner-1.7265129

The fact that they have been searching since late 2022 and still don't have a candidate is telling. They are on at least their 2nd 'interim' chief planner and that person has a background in transportation planning and I believe they will retire once a permanent person is in place. The previous interim person retired a few months ago.

I deal with the City daily in my job and it is a terrible disfunctional place to work with so many people 'temporary managers' or 'interim managers' or 'acting managers' (I find that term funny but most of the people I deal with at the City don't find it funny) and it doesn't surprise me that they are having a hard time attracting a quality head of the department.

[J.OT13]

This is to replace Alain Miguelez? Ha no idea the search was still on.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This is to replace Alain Miguelez? Ha no idea the search was still on.

No I believe it is to replace Steve Willis.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

No I believe it is to replace Steve Willis.

Right. Forgot about Willis.

[Williamoforange]

Unsurprisingly, Horizon Ottawa broke election regs...
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/audit-finds-ho...during-2022-municipal-election-1.6983789

[DTcrawler]

Watch, somehow they'll manage to attribute the allegations to the fact that "developers bad".

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Watch, somehow they'll manage to attribute the allegations to the fact that "developers bad".

Should we give developers and the hold they have on our municipal politicians a pass?

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Should we give developers and the hold they have on our municipal politicians a pass?

Lmao, if devs have the hold on council that Horizon think they did why is Ottawa new zoning bylaw still underzoning the majority of the city. 4 story limits downtown, and across from mass transit stations.

The only thing Horizon brings to light trending dev is that they don't like private housing being built. There follow the money is a farce and a half that includes plumbers, electricians, and Daniel Alfredsson because his brother happens to build boutique homes.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Lmao, if devs have the hold on council that Horizon think they did why is Ottawa new zoning bylaw still underzoning the majority of the city. 4 story limits downtown, and across from mass transit stations.

Because most developers don't much care about anything but new build and a lot of that is profitable sprawl? Their not going to care much about 4 storeys in the core cause the average developer really doesn't do much redevelopment.

[J.OT13]

Sutcliffe going on a rant against the Feds (weird) and Province (warranted).

• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

As a federal and provincial taxpayer, I hope those governments tell him to shove it. And I can't wait to view this guy out it.

This about covers his hypocrisy:

we elected a sports blogger, dumber than a bag of hammers, who has diverted all our tax dollars into stadiums for his friends, helicopters & boardrooms for cops, and wider roads for suburban commuters.

....

but it’s ok. his plan to keep the train’s lights on is to sign up for his newsletter on his non-city of Ottawa, private website, with zero explanation of how your private data will be used in the future.

not even 6 months have passed since historic $500M transfer to Ottawa btw.

....

this isn’t the city anyone wants. more homelessness, fewer active transportation options, fewer busses, fewer trains, less funding for festivals, more football. who the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 voted for this?

https://x.com/scorn_chip/status/1821605206226014362?t=_HDeD_COZgJVgBdFUDufIg&s=19

[rocketphish]

Ottawa in 'financial crisis' says mayor, blaming federal and provincial governments
Mark Sutcliffe accused the Ontario and Canadian government of shortchanging Ottawa hundreds of millions of dollars in transit funding and property tax equivalents.

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published Aug 08, 2024 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 5 minute read

Mayor Mark Sutcliffe unleashed a broadside at the federal and provincial governments Thursday, accusing them of shortchanging Ottawa by hundreds of millions of dollars in transit funding and property-tax equivalents.

“It is not an exaggeration to say Ottawa is facing a financial crisis,” Sutcliffe told reporters at a special briefing at city hall. “And I want to be clear that it’s a crisis that is not of our own making.”

Speaking at a lectern sporting a “Fairness for Ottawa” sign, the normally restrained and diplomatic mayor urged residents to put pressure on federal and provincial politicians to pay their fair share of Ottawa’s spiralling costs.

It was a forceful presentation from a mayor who conceded he “doesn’t thrive on drama or conflict.” But Sutcliffe said months of patient negotiations with the federal and provincial governments, including meetings with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford, haven’t secured all the funding the city needs as its 2025 budget process nears.

“They send moderately positive signals, ‘Yes, we’re going to look into this,’ but time is of the essence,” Sutcliffe said. “If we don’t get some answers from the federal and provincial government in the next 60 to 90 days, we’re going to have to make some very tough decisions.

“The reason I’m going public with this today — still diplomatically and still respectfully, but perhaps a little louder and more forcefully — is because it’s urgent.”

Sutcliffe accused the federal government of low-balling the city on the money it pays instead of property taxes. Governments aren’t allowed to tax each other, so the federal government, Ottawa’s biggest landowner and biggest employer, gives the city something called payment in lieu of taxes — PILT — to compensate.

But it’s the federal government that decides how much PILT it owes and Sutcliffe said it was paying the city $30 million less than it did eight years ago.

“People often ask me what has surprised me most since I became mayor. The situation with our PILTs is more than a surprise, it’s a shock,” Sutcliffe said.

“Imagine if I told you, as a property taxpayer, that you could decide how much you wanted to pay every year. Rather than have an independent valuation of your property, you could just choose your own valuation. Rather than have the tax rate set by the city, you could pick it yourself.

“Well, that’s exactly what the federal government gets to do. They decide how much their property is worth, what property class it belongs to, what tax rate they pay, all on their own. So, if they want to pay less, they pay less.

“And they do pay less … much less than they should.”

He also accused the federal government of letting its buildings deteriorate — he cited 24 Sussex as an example — or leaving them vacant for years and years, like the Jackson Building on Bank Street. As that building fell into disrepair, the federal government unilaterally reduced its value and the PILT accordingly.

“No private-sector owner would abandon a building for that long. They couldn’t afford to let it sit without any income,” Sutcliffe said.

The federal government has said it plans to sell off much of its downtown property in the coming years, reducing its “footprint” in Ottawa by as much as 50 per cent, Sutcliffe said.

“It’s a historic change,” he said, likening Ottawa to a company town where the big employer shutters its factory. The federal property selloff could have a “devastating impact” on the national capital, he warned.

“We need the federal government to play a huge role. They can’t abandon us,” he said. “They’re the No. 1 employer in our city. They’re the No. 1 property owner in downtown Ottawa. They can’t just walk away and leave us with a hollowed-out downtown core. They’ve got to help us, like any employer would.”

Sutcliffe also unloaded on higher levels of government that he said had left the city holding the bag on transit costs.

While transit projects worth billions of dollars in other Ontario cities have been subsidized and cost local residents nothing, Ottawa taxpayers have been stuck with paying nearly 60 per cent of the cost for the LRT.

The federal and provincial governments agreed to pay one-third each for the LRT, but Ottawa taxpayers have been left on their own to pay for cost overruns — largely caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The federal and provincial shares of LRT costs had fallen to 22 per cent each, Sutcliffe said.

The city is in a “transit crisis,” he said — “crisis” appeared nine times in Sutcliffe’s 4,400 word, 30-minute speech — caused in part by the loss of ridership by work-from-home public servants. Ridership by downtown office workers is down 36 per cent, costing OC Transpo $36 million a year in lost fare revenue.

“I want to be clear: I have never asked the federal government to change the number of days public servants go to the office,” Sutcliffe said. “That’s between them and their employees. But I am asking the federal government to acknowledge the impact of their decisions on our city.”

OC Transpo is facing an annual operating shortfall of $140 million for the next three or four years, he said.

“We don’t even have the money we need to operate our existing system,” Sutcliffe said. “If we don’t get the help we need, it won’t even make financial sense to open Phase 2 of light rail. We’d be better off, from a financial perspective, not to open and run the system.”

Without help, covering that $140-million shortfall will take a 37-per-cent hike in the transit levy, which translates to a seven-per-cent property tax hike just to pay for transit. The only other option, he warned, is to find the money elsewhere by cutting services.

Mayor’s five demands in his ‘Fairness for Ottawa’ speech:

• That the federal government pay up the nearly $100 million it owes the city in PILTs for the past five years
• That the federal government start to pay its fair share for local services rather than “cutting yourself a deal at every opportunity and asking local taxpayers to make up the shortfall”
• That the federal government maintain its PILTs payments at an appropriate level even as it sells off downtown real estate
• That the federal and provincial governments restore the 33 per cent funding they initially promised for LRT
• That the higher levels of government help cover OC Transpo’s $140-million operating shortfall to help recover from the loss or ridership

“These are not unreasonable requests,” Sutcliffe said. “It’s a very simple path forward that will allow the federal and provincial governments to help us when we need it most.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa-in...l-and-provincial-government-underfunding

[J.OT13]

He's 100% correct on the transit capital cost piece; Ottawa has really been shafted compared to the sweetheart deals the GTA has had over the years, but he loses credibility for various reasons;

1. Promising to limit property tax increase to 2.5% regardless of inflation and sticking to it;
2. Pushing through Lansdowne 2.0 regardless of the cost;
3. Having accepted the Province's $500 million with enthusiasm six months ago, even though it was clear that was a bad deal compared to what the GTA gets.

[Truenorth00]

I don't buy the GTA comparison as so straightforward. A city of 1M (region of 1.5M) has very different needs to a region of 8M. Ottawa is contextually similar in population and geographic size to York Region. That's a region that has no LRT and whose main cross-regional service is an at-grade partially segregated BRT.

Transport investments are made across multiple domains (including roads) and made with future populations in mind. Spending $50B for a 2050 GTHA with 10M people is $5000/capita. Incidentally pretty close to the $5B federal and provincial governments have spent on our LRT system. The discrepancy is not nearly as big as mayor wants to make it.

Finally, there are regional transport needs that arise as population grows. But that would be more like if Eastern Ontario had a few million people. Not just Ottawa having a million. At that point, we might need something like a GO network.

At the end of the day though, whatever those arguments, the utter mismanagement of this council and bungling of the LRT will not motivate higher governments to give Ottawa more. Particularly bad look to come begging right after getting half a billion. It's this going to become an annual Ottawa tradition? And he's complaining about capital funding differences, but is asking for operational funding so that he doesn't have to raise taxes. Good politics to get dupes in Ottawa fired up. Federal and provincial bureaucrats will see right through that.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't buy the GTA comparison as so straightforward. A city of 1M (region of 1.5M) has very different needs to a region of 8M. Ottawa is contextually similar in population and geographic size to York Region. That's a region that has no LRT and whose main cross-regional service is an at-grade partially segregated BRT.

Transport investments are made across multiple domains (including roads) and made with future populations in mind. Spending $50B for a 2050 GTHA with 10M people is $5000/capita. Incidentally pretty close to the $5B federal and provincial governments have spent on our LRT system. The discrepancy is not nearly as big as mayor wants to make it.

Finally, there are regional transport needs that arise as population grows. But that would be more like if Eastern Ontario had a few million people. Not just Ottawa having a million. At that point, we might need something like a GO network.

At the end of the day though, whatever those arguments, the utter mismanagement of this council and bungling of the LRT will not motivate higher governments to give Ottawa more. Particularly bad look to come begging right after getting half a billion. It's this going to become an annual Ottawa tradition? And he's complaining about capital funding differences, but is asking for operational funding so that he doesn't have to raise taxes. Good politics to get dupes in Ottawa fired up. Federal and provincial bureaucrats will see right through that.

Comparing the GTA with Ottawa isn't straightforward, but comparing the suburban York Region with Ottawa isn't either. The Feds and Province put in closer to $3 Billion for our O-Train system, not $5 Billion, and that was settled before Doug Ford. It's in the same pot as the Vaughn extension, the Crosstown, Finch and the UPX, not the upcoming $50 Billion.

I'm not even necessarily asking for an exact dollar for dollar proportional funding, but at the moment, we have $80 million (1/3 funding) for the Kanata North BRT. That's it. If we're basing this on needs, how about funding a couple Billion worth of BRTs that have been sitting on a shelf for a decade? BRT's that could provide better service to the O-Train lines and provide redundancies. How about upgrading Dow's Lake Station (poorly) connected to the new hospital?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Comparing the GTA with Ottawa isn't straightforward, but comparing the suburban York Region with Ottawa isn't either. The Feds and Province put in closer to $3 Billion for our O-Train system, not $5 Billion, and that was settled before Doug Ford. It's in the same pot as the Vaughn extension, the Crosstown, Finch and the UPX, not the upcoming $50 Billion.

I'm not even necessarily asking for an exact dollar for dollar proportional funding, but at the moment, we have $80 million (1/3 funding) for the Kanata North BRT. That's it. If we're basing this on needs, how about funding a couple Billion worth of BRTs that have been sitting on a shelf for a decade? BRT's that could provide better service to the O-Train lines and provide redundancies. How about upgrading Dow's Lake Station (poorly) connected to the new hospital?

Cool. So when they give $2B for Barrhaven extension, that should be the end of complaints from Ottawa right?

Part of the problem here is that Ottawa wants to spend billions on transit where the case is very weak. For example, the Trillium Extension should clearly have been limited to the airport with the rest saved for a future phase. Even though I supported it, I'm willing to admit, that maybe going to Orleans was a bridge too far. From the federal and provincial perspective every billion sent to Ottawa is competing with every other project in the province. And it's valid to ask which projects get the most ridership and/or economic gains.

In any event, arguing about capital funding isn't going to solve the city's ongoing fiscal problems which are fundamentally local. Chow raised taxes 9.5% in Toronto. Sutcliffe stuck to 2.5%. Why would anybody bail out Ottawa when local politicians aren't willing to do the hard things necessary?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Cool. So when they give $2B for Barrhaven extension, that should be the end of complaints from Ottawa right?

Part of the problem here is that Ottawa wants to spend billions on transit where the case is very weak. For example, the Trillium Extension should clearly have been limited to the airport with the rest saved for a future phase. Even though I supported it, I'm willing to admit, that maybe going to Orleans was a bridge too far. From the federal and provincial perspective every billion sent to Ottawa is competing with every other project in the province. And it's valid to ask which projects get the most ridership and/or economic gains.

In any event, arguing about capital funding isn't going to solve the city's ongoing fiscal problems which are fundamentally local. Chow raised taxes 9.5% in Toronto. Sutcliffe stuck to 2.5%. Why would anybody bail out Ottawa when local politicians aren't willing to do the hard things necessary?

Yeah, money needs to be invested wisely. The train was already planned for Place d'Orleans. Trim was unnecessary. Eagleson would have made more sense. Line 2 should have been double tracked instead of extended. Kanata and Barrhaven Stage 3 as they exist may not be wise. Should probably be cut back to Terry Fox and Fallowfield.

On the other hand in the GTA, Vaughn extension goes through rail yards, empty fields, industrial lands, stroads. Could have been elevated. Stations didn't need to be humongous. Brampton's Hurontario extension was supposed to be surface, but they decided they want a tunnel instead. We'll see if they get the blank check from the Province. Sacarborough Subway could have been an extension of Crosstown (which itself could have been elevated).

The most pressing transit projects in Ottawa are probably the far cheaper and reasonable BRTs, far more than Stage 3. That shouldn't be controversial and deserve support from upper level Governments.

I agree, operational funding is the City's responsibility. If the City insists on keeping the transit system commuter focused despite hybrid work, that's their problem, not the Feds. The City and OC should look at new ways to fund transit like more uPass like deals with employers, hospitals and developers building on the O-Train, developing OC and City land at stations with market housing (like Translink). They should re-visit the bus schedule to further break it down, from Weekdays-Saturday-Sunday to maybe Monday/Friday-Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday-Saturday-Sunday. Try something, anything that takes more brain power than just cuts.

I also agree on the property taxes. Limiting to 2.5% is irresponsible. They should go up with inflation.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yeah, money needs to be invested wisely. The train was already planned for Place d'Orleans. Trim was unnecessary. Eagleson would have made more sense. Line 2 should have been double tracked instead of extended. Kanata and Barrhaven Stage 3 as they exist may not be wise. Should probably be cut back to Terry Fox and Fallowfield.

On the other hand in the GTA, Vaughn extension goes through rail yards, empty fields, industrial lands, stroads. Could have been elevated. Stations didn't need to be humongous. Brampton's Hurontario extension was supposed to be surface, but they decided they want a tunnel instead. We'll see if they get the blank check from the Province.

Yes. They have a waste. But also those wasteful developments still have ridership growing like crazy. It does compensate somewhat for whatever wasteful decisions they make. Compare ridership and growth in Brampton to Ottawa. And that vanity tunnel, wasteful though it is, is still only a small portion of an unsegregated, at-grade LRT line. Also, is it really different from say what we're doing along the Byron Corridor?

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Sacarborough Subway could have been an extension of Crosstown (which itself could have been elevated).

Only in Canada, does a corridor that already gets more ridership than most LRT systems and even some subway systems somehow not warrant subway construction. I'm so glad to see commenters like Recce Martin call out this backwards BS. Rare time the Fords were right.

At the end of the day, Ottawa residents trying to make the case for a bailout by whining about waste in the GTA isn't going to get very far. "You should pay for our waste, because they were allowed to waste a but." Not a winning argument. Especially, with a mostly GTA centric government.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The most pressing transit projects in Ottawa are probably the far cheaper and reasonable BRTs, far more than Stage 3. That shouldn't be controversial and deserve support from upper level Governments.

Somebody should tell the mayor that, instead of his regular whining, as he tries to get more funding for full Stage 3 extensions. Also ridiculous they can't chunk up extensions into smaller stages. Why can't we go Stage 3 to Fallowfield and Terry Fox. And Stage 4 beyond that?

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree, operational funding is the City's responsibility. If the City insists on keeping the transit system commuter focused despite hybrid work, that's their problem, not the Feds. The City and OC should look at new ways to fund transit like more uPass like deals with employers, hospitals and developers building on the O-Train, developing OC and City land at stations with market housing (like Translink). They should re-visit the bus schedule to further break it down, from Weekdays-Saturday-Sunday to maybe Monday/Friday-Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday-Saturday-Sunday. Try something, anything that takes more brain power than just cuts.

I also agree on the property taxes. Limiting to 2.5% is irresponsible. They should go up with inflation.

They wouldn't even do that to prove their sincerity. Went right to the whining. Nobody should take them seriously.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. They have a waste. But also those wasteful developments still have ridership growing like crazy. It does compensate somewhat for whatever wasteful decisions they make. Compare ridership and growth in Brampton to Ottawa. And that vanity tunnel, wasteful though it is, is still only a small portion of an unsegregated, at-grade LRT line. Also, is it really different from say what we're doing along the Byron Corridor?

Ottawa designed it's system to be as cheap as possible while keeping it grade separated. Maintaining separation is essential to keep average speeds up and reliability up considering how insanely long the line will be.

The Brampton tunnel and Byron tunnels don't compare. Byron is built mostly along former rail corridors with minimal disruptions to existing services, and stations are small open air boxes. Quite a simple set-up for what it is. It didn't add billions to the price tag.

Only in Canada, does a corridor that already gets more ridership than most LRT systems and even some subway systems somehow not warrant subway construction. I'm so glad to see commenters like Recce Martin call out this backwards BS. Rare time the Fords were right.

At the end of the day, Ottawa residents trying to make the case for a bailout by whining about waste in the GTA isn't going to get very far. "You should pay for our waste, because they were allowed to waste a but." Not a winning argument. Especially, with a mostly GTA centric government.

Not saying GTA is wasting money so we should be able to do the same. I'm saying the GTA gets an insane amount of funding, and we should get funding for our needs as well.

Every decision Ottawa makes is nickel and dimed. We have to cut down the project to fit the budget, build our "Chevrolet" LRT system, while the GTA can ask for anything they want with no question. Seems pretty fair to question why the double standard.

Somebody should tell the mayor that, instead of his regular whining, as he tries to get more funding for full Stage 3 extensions. Also ridiculous they can't chunk up extensions into smaller stages. Why can't we go Stage 3 to Fallowfield and Terry Fox. And Stage 4 beyond that?

They wouldn't even do that to prove their sincerity. Went right to the whining. Nobody should take them seriously.

The City did build the budget plan with that in mind, building partial Stage 3, with the rest left for future phases. At this point, Sutcliffe seems to have zero interest in building Stage 3 at all. His whining yesterday seemed to only be about the City's current financial state. I'm not sure he actually requested funding for any specific project (I could be wrong).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Ottawa designed it's system to be as cheap as possible while keeping it grade separated. Maintaining separation is essential to keep average speeds up and reliability up considering how insanely long the line will be.

You're retconning here. Ottawa designed the system to be as cheap as possible to get as many kms as possible. Pre-2013 crash, they even planned on running the LRT at grade in the burbs. If they had simply planned to build a subway from Bayshore to Blair and a twin tracked medium rail system from Bayview to the Airport, the outcome and costs would have been very different.