Ottawa LRT Public Inquiry

[Truenorth00]

What this shows is that the politicians of the era were slimy and conniving a**holes who purposely tried to create a fait accompli before an election. Not in the least, I suspect, because their developer buddies wanted security for their holdings in the south. We deserve the penalties for electing those crooks and tolerating that kind of corruption.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Even if that is the case, the election was beyond 30 days, let alone the decision to cancel the contract. City Council voted to sign the contract in early July 2006, the contract was signed by no later than August 2006, the election took place on November 13, 2006 and the city council vote to cancel the contract took place in December 2006. So, your 30 day no penalty cancellation clause would not apply anyways. Who knows if such a clause was included, but it doesn't matter.

We deserved the penalty, and we deserved the loss of all our design investment. We threw out most if not all of those plans. We also deserved the retribution from the provincial government by underfunding Phase 1 (the underfunding was matched by the feds) for unwisely cancelling a legal and democratically approved contract.

We lost close to $100M as a result of cancelling the contract as well as another $100M as result of Phase 1 underfunding, which was politically motivated.

This shows that Ottawa has a longstanding history of botching rail projects as the Public Inquiry clearly confirms relating to Phase 1. We also botched the Trillium Line upgrade in 2016. The city clearly did not have the expertise to approve and manage that upgrade either. The end result puts into question the value that we received from that upgrade.

Sorry, I meant 30 days notice.

So they signed a contract in August, without a cancellation clause, knowing the election was 2 months away, knowing federal funding had not been confirmed, knowing the election was being fought almost exclusively on the LRT issue, and knowing the two leading candidates wanted to either cancel or significantly change the project. To me that is gross negligence to the point of potential criminality.

[Truenorth00]

They wanted to present the plan as a fait accompli, forcing both the public and the next council to accept it. I wish there had been an investigation in to ties with landholders along the proposed route and donations to council.

[rocketphish]

Accountability from devastating LRT inquiry report now in hands of current council
City Hall culture has to change if we don't want a repeat of the Confederation Line debacle

Joanne Chianello · CBC News
Posted: Dec 03, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 10 hours ago

The people of Ottawa are angry — as they have every right to be.

For years, we knew that something was wrong with OC Transpo's Confederation Line — not just normal growing pains, but something deeper, more fundamental.

And for years, our city leaders told us that wasn't the case or suggested it was solely that LRT builder Rideau Transit Group (RTG) "failed" the residents of Ottawa.

It is certainly true that RTG — made up of SNC-Lavalin, ACS Infrastructure and EllisDon — designed and built a system riddled with issues (some ongoing to this day). Time and time again, executives told us the LRT would be finished on dates it knew wasn't possible.

But the private companies aren't the only ones to let us down. Our city's top leaders did too.

And that's because we didn't vote for RTG — we hired them. Of course, we should expect corporations to live up to their contractual promises, but we also expect them to act in their own interest.

But for elected officials and top public servants, their interests are our interests.

That is why the scathing report on the LRT public inquiry that Justice William Hourigan delivered this week hit a nerve with so many.

The inquiry commissioner concluded, among many other findings, that the Confederation Line was rushed to open before it was ready, and that everyone expected there'd be issues with reliability.

You might expect a consortium of private companies to try to push the limits of what's allowed, but you also expect the people working for you to push back.

Instead, by mid-2019, with the project more than a year late, our agents in this $2.1-billion undertaking, sided not with us, but with them.

"The city was willing to compromise its rights," writes Hourigan in his illuminating 664-page report.

And, as headlines have screamed this week, the commissioner lambasted former mayor Jim Watson — who Hourigan found exerted political pressure to get the LRT open — city manager Steve Kanellakos and transit boss John Manconi for keeping critical information from most other councillors.

Their conduct "leads to serious concerns about the good faith of senior City staff and raises questions about where their loyalties lie," Hourigan found.

So it is understandable that the people of Ottawa are demanding accountability. But what does that look like?

There are those who'd like heads to roll, but the heads of those named in the report have already rolled right out of city hall.

You get the feeling that people would have preferred that instead of Steve Kanellakos voluntarily stepping down last Monday before the report came out, that he was still in his position so he could be fired.

Having any of these men respond to this week's report might be useful, but the call for public shaming that's being heard in some corners is not.

The $10-million public inquiry report has accomplished that already.

Others are musing about the legal ramifications of some of these actions. But lying to council isn't a crime, at least not usually. For example, it is actually illegal for someone who has a "duty to disclose the truth" to lie to council if it influences a vote.

But while the city OK'd trains with defects, made final testing easier to pass and lowered the performance bar on the LRT, city council didn't get to vote on any of that.

While that might seem procedural nitpicking, it's exactly the sort of details that current council members have to start thinking hard about if we are to avoid this sort of debacle in the future.

If we care about the outcome, then we have to care about the process.

When councillors delegate their authority to staff — as is necessary to get anything done — do they know precisely what powers they are giving away? Councillors have been shocked to discover they have signed off on their right even to ask questions.

And speaking of questions, it's up to council to ask informed ones.

Councillors can't just pass their decision-making buck with the excuse they are not engineers or lawyers or planners — pick your expertise — and simply accept staff recommendations. They are thinking people who can read reports and it's their job to press for more details when needed.

At the same time, elected officials have to be open to hearing bad news without excoriating staff in public.

And there are concrete recommendations from Hourigan's report that council can adopt to make sure elected officials are getting the information they need. These include having an independent third party, overseeing LRT improvements on the critical track issues, report directly to council — and not first going through staff or the mayor's office.

Council could also press the province to protect whistleblowers on major infrastructure projects, as Hourigan calls for.

Mayor Mark Sutclffe has already said he plans to collaborate with councillors, "and not withhold information from them."

There are some early signs he means that.

In the giant governance report coming to council this week, Sutcliffe is calling for the deputy mayor position to be rotated instead of appointed.

That might seem like a minor point. But Watson's appointment of permanent deputies helped him forge a team of supporters beholden to him. The former was able to wield considerable power only because most of council let him — and we know how that turned out.

One of the many lessons from Hourigan's report is that governance and accountability matter.

And ultimately, that can only come from our nascent council.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ncil-1.6673202

[rocketphish]

Pretend I’m Jim Watson. I’m listening.
'It looks like a world-class transit system, but it’s not.' Turns out Ottawa just wants trains that run on time

Bruce Deachman, Ottawa Citizen
Dec 03, 2022 • 5 hours ago • 3 minute read

It was Thursday afternoon and I was telling Mike at Printwell printers in the St. Laurent Shopping Centre why I couldn’t wait the expected two-day turnaround to have a custom T-shirt made.

“I want to ride the LRT tomorrow morning,” I explained, “and get riders’ thoughts on the recent LRT report and the state of the system, and I want to wear a T-shirt that reads, ‘Pretend I’m Jim Watson. I’m listening,’ and see what people say.”

Mike got it immediately. “On time and on budget!” he blurted into the phone, a dig at Watson’s oft-repeated promise. “Come by this afternoon,” he added, “and we’ll get your T-shirt done.”

It turned out, however, that Mike’s civic awareness was not one universally shared by Friday morning’s LRT passengers, at least not the ones with whom I spoke. Fewer than half were aware of the inquiry into the LRT Phase 1 tragicomedy, let alone Commissioner William Hourigan’s scathing report on it that was released this week.

Not only that, a couple of riders I spoke with had never heard of Jim Watson.

That said, there is no small measure of bliss in ignorance, I thought, as I listened to the metal-on-metal screeching of the wheels and wondered whether the “interface” issues and misalignment between wheel and rail profiles cited in the report were at all responsible for the ungodly racket. But maybe it was just me. After all, there can’t be monsters under the bed if you’re unaware of the possibility of monsters under the bed.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t alone.

“It could sound better,” rider Michel Cecire agreed outside the Hurdman station. “And ride better. With all the delays and all the repairs and all the upgrades, and it still rides and sounds like s—.

“I’m not impressed at all,” he added. “They could have done a lot better for the price. And now they’re going up to Trim Road, and they’re adding north-south. So, instead of costing us an arm and a leg, it’s going to cost us both arms and both legs.”

Notwithstanding the outsized welcome I received from a woman at the Blair station — “Hello, Jim Watson!” she enthusiastically shouted in response to my T-shirt — my journey up and down the tracks aboard numerous trains on Friday was uneventful. It seemed slow at times — a complaint repeated by a couple of passengers — but there were no derailments, no undue bumpiness and certainly no evidence of the urine that uOttawa student Rachel Haw says she regularly discovers on car floors. “It happens like every two weeks,” she said. “Certainly a lot more than I wish it would.”

If there was no urine Friday, there were traces of bile — directed at Watson. “It’s convenient for him to walk away before this,” one anonymous passenger said. “I’d like to ask him, ‘What the f— happened? Are you just going to write a book and make more money off this? He’s just going to leave Ottawa riders with this mess.”

Martha Chaparro tried a more even approach, noting that, although the public was not well-served during the LRT process, it overshadowed many of the former mayor’s accomplishments. “Whatever good he did was put on the backburner and covered because of this.”

Another rider — Benjamin — was also “not happy” with the lack of transparency on such a large project. “But at least we’re not having the nightmares we had in the past,” he said. “But for me it’s OK because, overall, the train is working now.”

And that was the overarching message I heard from numerous passengers. We have a light-rail system that, in the words of rider Valentina Perez, is only aesthetically world-class. “It looks like a world-class transit system, but it’s not. It’s still not.” But we have an LRT.

Perhaps being the seat of the federal government has left us desensitized to the sort of mismanagement described in Hourigan’s report. Maybe the small-town provincial attitude that we’re frequently tagged with keeps our expectations low and leaves us simply happy to have any sort of light-rail transit at all.

“I’m not mad,” Emma Sobel said as she exited the Blair station Friday. “Jim Watson made some mistakes, but I think it’s great we have a train. From the sleepy town I grew up in to a city that has a train … good for Ottawa. We’ll get there. We’re going to get there with the train.”

All aboard. And mind the urine.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...at-run-on-time

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sorry, I meant 30 days notice.

So they signed a contract in August, without a cancellation clause, knowing the election was 2 months away, knowing federal funding had not been confirmed, knowing the election was being fought almost exclusively on the LRT issue, and knowing the two leading candidates wanted to either cancel or significantly change the project. To me that is gross negligence to the point of potential criminality.

A little history lesson, the 2003 election was fought on extending the O-Train to the south. It was already under discussion for several months at that time. So, City Council of 2003 to 2006 had the mandate to move forward with the project, and it was discussed publicly and there were numerous votes on the issue, all approving moving forward. So, City Council had the mandate to approve the project, so the July 2006 approval was totally valid. Why would they not? Why would they put years of planning at risk?

The federal and provincial governments were on board, and John Baird's refusal to confirm federal funding, after the contract was signed, was political grandstanding and interference during the 2006 municipal election. The feds had already committed the money and would have come through.

There is no gross negligence in moving forward on a project that was approved repeatedly by council which was mandated to do so. What was gross negligence was cancelling the project that ultimately cost city taxpayers at least $300M in penalties, tossed out planning costs and lost grant opportunities from upper levels of government. Piecemeal projects from the original plan also cost the city more money in the following years, including the Vimy Bridge.

People who say it was gross negligence are doing so, because they liked the plan that replaced it, forgetting that this did not really materialize until years after that 2006 election. All that was discussed during the election was a review of the plan, some vague alternatives and Larry O'Brien saying that a great city should walk down to transit. That latter point did not necessarily relate to the original plan and could have been Phase 2. Larry O'Brien's main position was to have a 6 month review and a mayor's task force on transit, denying that the city would face financial liability, which turned out to be false. Realistically, what company would sign a contract with a no penalty cancellation clause? If city potentially wanted to cancel the contract, the contract should not have been signed. But, that would have also denied council's mandate.

The mayor's task force report ultimately got entirely thrown into the trash can. With the original plan cancelled, and the task force plan also garbaged, the city did a complete rethink. It also totally invalidated all the planning done up to 2006. Only then did we start moving towards the Confederation Line and this is also why we have had a really crappy Trillium Line upgrade process with repeated lengthy shutdowns. We cannot consider anything remotely looking like the original plan. The Confederation Line required substantially more funding that did not exist in 2006 and we got shortchanged by the province based on an early estimate for the Confed Line as punishment for our 2006 irresponsibility. Never said in so many words, but it was obvious. It also set back LRT implementation by 10 years.

Jim Watson's election in 2010 agreed to continue with the revised project reluctantly because the city could not stomach 'pushing the reset button' again, but this points out the risks to major projects at every election and why moving forward as far as possible within a council mandate is so important. We saw transit resets in Toronto repeatedly with every election during the same era and this is why Metrolinx took over rail transit planning in Toronto. We cannot risk resets at every election and potentially wasting enormous amounts of tax money. The municipal election cycle does not always provide stability to plan these projects that extend beyond an election cycle. Ottawa was the poster child for this in 2006 and was a laughing stock across the country.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A little history lesson, the 2003 election was fought on extending the O-Train to the south. It was already under discussion for several months at that time. So, City Council of 2003 to 2006 had the mandate to move forward with the project, and it was discussed publicly and there were numerous votes on the issue, all approving moving forward. So, City Council had the mandate to approve the project, so the July 2006 approval was totally valid. Why would they not? Why would they put years of planning at risk?

The federal and provincial governments were on board, and John Baird's refusal to confirm federal funding, after the contract was signed, was political grandstanding and interference during the 2006 municipal election. The feds had already committed the money and would have come through.

There is no gross negligence in moving forward on a project that was approved repeatedly by council which was mandated to do so. What was gross negligence was cancelling the project that ultimately cost city taxpayers at least $300M in penalties, tossed out planning costs and lost grant opportunities from upper levels of government. Piecemeal projects from the original plan also cost the city more money in the following years, including the Vimy Bridge.

People who say it was gross negligence are doing so, because they liked the plan that replaced it, forgetting that this did not really materialize until years after that 2006 election. All that was discussed during the election was a review of the plan, some vague alternatives and Larry O'Brien saying that a great city should walk down to transit. That latter point did not necessarily relate to the original plan and could have been Phase 2. Larry O'Brien's main position was to have a 6 month review and a mayor's task force on transit, denying that the city would face financial liability, which turned out to be false. Realistically, what company would sign a contract with a no penalty cancellation clause? If city potentially wanted to cancel the contract, the contract should not have been signed. But, that would have also denied council's mandate.

The mayor's task force report ultimately got entirely thrown into the trash can. With the original plan cancelled, and the task force plan also garbaged, the city did a complete rethink. It also totally invalidated all the planning done up to 2006. Only then did we start moving towards the Confederation Line and this is also why we have had a really crappy Trillium Line upgrade process with repeated lengthy shutdowns. We cannot consider anything remotely looking like the original plan. The Confederation Line required substantially more funding that did not exist in 2006 and we got shortchanged by the province based on an early estimate for the Confed Line as punishment for our 2006 irresponsibility. Never said in so many words, but it was obvious. It also set back LRT implementation by 10 years.

Jim Watson's election in 2010 agreed to continue with the revised project reluctantly because the city could not stomach 'pushing the reset button' again, but this points out the risks to major projects at every election and why moving forward as far as possible within a council mandate is so important. We saw transit resets in Toronto repeatedly with every election during the same era and this is why Metrolinx took over rail transit planning in Toronto. We cannot risk resets at every election and potentially wasting enormous amounts of tax money. The municipal election cycle does not always provide stability to plan these projects that extend beyond an election cycle. Ottawa was the poster child for this in 2006 and was a laughing stock across the country.

It would be gross negligence no matter what parties or issues are involved. The city staff that signed the deal knew federal funding had not been confirmed. They knew that Charelli was badly trailing in polls and that a new major was likely to want to revisit the contract. If O’Brian had signed a 2 months before the election that he knew Watson was going to reverse then that would have been just as negligent.

Even if the election and federal funding were not issues, it is insanely negligent to sign a major contract without a cancellation clause. Circumstances could always change, a court injunction, an election, a pandemic. It isn’t like Siemens had done any work in those two months. They should have gotten actual expenses of a few million dollars. Instead they walked away with a massive windfall because of the stupidity of incompetent staff.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It would be gross negligence no matter what parties or issues are involved. The city staff that signed the deal knew federal funding had not been confirmed. They knew that Charelli was badly trailing in polls and that a new major was likely to want to revisit the contract. If O’Brian had signed a 2 months before the election that he knew Watson was going to reverse then that would have been just as negligent.

Even if the election and federal funding were not issues, it is insanely negligent to sign a major contract without a cancellation clause. Circumstances could always change, a court injunction, an election, a pandemic. It isn’t like Siemens had done any work in those two months. They should have gotten actual expenses of a few million dollars. Instead they walked away with a massive windfall because of the stupidity of incompetent staff.

The funding was confirmed. John Baird was grandstanding. The funding would have come. There was no risk to the city.

The final vote took place before nominations opened for the 2006 election. How would Chiarelli be trailing if there were no candidates, not even himself? There was no indication that somebody would try to overturn the democratic vote that had just taken place. O'Brien signed on about a month after the vote, on a platform of being fiscally responsible.

Nobody puts a cancellation clause into a contract like you describe. There was a standard clause which is in every contract to allow for certain unforeseen circumstances. Overturning a democratic vote is not one of them.

You assume nothing was going on, because no construction was taking place, but I am sure detailed planning was going on behind the scenes and that is not free. Also, penalties are awarded for lost opportunity.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make with your revisionist history and complaining about the lack of an unrealistic cancellation clause. Do you think that exists in any of the current contracts? I highly doubt it.

The very first point made on this tangent was that Larry O'Brien now admits that he shouldn't have cancelled the contract. Nothing more. Any reasonable person would agree that cancelling the contract put the city at financial risk. He chose to ignore that risk and the city paid millions. That all seems to be the reasonable consequence of cancelling a contract for no good reason. It could have been much worse.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The funding was confirmed. John Baird was grandstanding. The funding would have come. There was no risk to the city.

The final vote took place before nominations opened for the 2006 election. How would Chiarelli be trailing if there were no candidates, not even himself? There was no indication that somebody would try to overturn the democratic vote that had just taken place. O'Brien signed on about a month after the vote, on a platform of being fiscally responsible.

Nobody puts a cancellation clause into a contract like you describe. There was a standard clause which is in every contract to allow for certain unforeseen circumstances. Overturning a democratic vote is not one of them.

You assume nothing was going on, because no construction was taking place, but I am sure detailed planning was going on behind the scenes and that is not free. Also, penalties are awarded for lost opportunity.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make with your revisionist history and complaining about the lack of an unrealistic cancellation clause. Do you think that exists in any of the current contracts? I highly doubt it.

The very first point made on this tangent was that Larry O'Brien now admits that he shouldn't have cancelled the contract. Nothing more. Any reasonable person would agree that cancelling the contract put the city at financial risk. He chose to ignore that risk and the city paid millions. That all seems to be the reasonable consequence of cancelling a contract for no good reason. It could have been much worse.

I don’t think you understand what the word “confirmed” means. Federal funding for a major project is not confirmed until Treasury Board approves. That is the thing that Baird delayed (as President of the Treasury Board at the time). Federal officials had no legal authority to cut a cheque when the city signed. City staff more or less pulled a Clark Griswold and assumed they would get the Christmas bonus, signed a contract would build a pool, without waiting for the bonus to arrive.

What is your evidence that “nobody puts a cancellation clause in a contract.” Have you ever signed a contract that didn’t have a cancellation or termination clause? Car leases, home renovations, employment contracts all have cancellation clauses. As I said earlier, you can’t get a contract for cleaning toilets with the federal government without a cancellation clause.

Only one poll in the entire election campaign showed Charelli leading. Most of it was Munter leading, but he also promised to cancel the contract.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...oject-1.594308

When city staff signed the contract they knew it was likely to get cancelled at significant expense to the city. This is gross negligence and gross incompetence.

Penalties should not have been awarded for lost opportunities. They should have gotten expenses incurred.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by acottawa

City staff more or less pulled a Gus Griswold and assumed they would get the Christmas bonus, signed a contract would build a pool, without waiting for the bonus to arrive.

Clark Griswold. Clark W. Griswold Jr. in fact.

[Richard Eade]

I think that memories (including mine, no doubt) might be a little bit ‘selective’ when it comes to the old North-South O-Train Expansion project.

There was already public controversy about the program BEFORE any contract was signed or election called. Have you all forgotten about the, almost constant, media reports about ‘the REAL cost’ ‘sky-rocketing’ for the project? The originally released cost was extremely low. So low, in fact, that many could not believe it, and began to look into the facts. Facts that were hard to uncover because of the ‘secrecy’ of the planning. The cost kept being re-announced as elements, such as the bridge across the Rideau River, and the maintenance yard were finally admitted to be part of the deal, but, for some reason, not part of the announced cost? There was a lot of media ink used to push the idea that the ‘TRUE COST’ could be over a Billion dollars – but that there was no way to know because the municipal government was being ‘secretive’ about the contract; in order to make it look as cheap as possible.

The $200M that each of the Federal and Provincial Governments had ‘pledged’ were not required to be actually ‘confirmed’ until as late as mid-December of 2006. The lack of clarity on the ‘TRUE COST’ for the total project was a factor in causing BOTH upper levels of government to re-think their submissions. It was not just Baird who wanted more clarity about whether the City could afford to cover its large portion of the project’s cost. And whether the population of the city was willing to pay the extra cost with their taxes.

People seem to think that it was the election that caused the problem. In fact, the problems began much earlier. The election was simply the way that some people thought that they could ‘fix’ the mess that was going on. When a project is so controversial that it draws several people into an election just over that one issue, there is a problem.

My memory is that only Kilrea was calling for the project to be ‘scrapped’ outright, as he felt that the (still not completely known, in his view) cost had grown too large for the city – and was, likely, to grow larger. Munter wanted to cut it back by snipping off the Barrhaven link; which also removed the cost of the new bridge. While O’Brien wanted to ‘pause’ the project for six months, while it was reviewed so that an actual, accurate, cost could be determined, and to see whether issues that he perceived as faults could be corrected. He was against the downtown portion of the original plan, preferring to see that portion of the line moved below-grade.

Once elected, in the early-December vote, O’Brien voted, with the outcome of 12-11, in favour of keeping the project going, but to renegotiate with Siemens to drop the downtown portion. The on-street running through downtown was going to be re-evaluated to see if it could be put into a tunnel. Staff estimated that the tunnel would add $500M to the cost. It was up to Council to determine if that was a cost the City wanted to add.

Apparently, in the contract signed by the City, there was a deadline of December 15, by which date the City had to have secured funding from upper levels of government. It became clear that the funding was not going to be confirmed by that date, so on December 14, Council voted 13-11 to cancel the contract. (So, No, O’Brien’s vote was not the one that killed the project.) Had the reluctance of the upper levels of government to issue the funds been purely political in nature (i.e., Conservative Baird withholding payment from Liberal Chiarelli), there was plenty of time to announce the confirmed payments after the election but before the contract deadline. That didn’t happen because there was genuine concern about the project’s cost. The money was also being withheld by both levels of government; it was not just Baird.

As for the cancelation cost, there were wild estimated from many sources. I think that the Ottawa Sun even claimed that it could be as high as $1B! However, because the contract was cancelled BEFORE the December 15 deadline, the $36M penalty kicked in. The City wound up paying $36.7M, I believe, but that got them all of the engineering work done up to that point. Work which could, theoretically, be used in the future. Whether any of the actual plans were used to support the current Trillium Line Expansion, I do not know. However, information like that likely was a base for developing newer plans.

And, the City didn’t ‘lose’ the $200M being offered by each level of government. That money was repeatedly announced as ‘available’ for any LRT project that the city could provide a valid funding request for. It, in fact, made up part of the $600M that the city got from each government once the plans for the Confederation Line were ready. This was to cover the estimated cost of $1.8B in a three-way split. However, as is confirmed in the LRT Inquiry report, the City has had the habit of submitting estimates that are not realistic. Once the costs were refined a bit, the new estimate of $2.1B was released. However, the upper levels of government did not increase their funding, so the City has had to cover the entire ‘error’ of the estimate. This new, higher, cost prediction also proved to be optimistically inaccurate. Unfortunately, it had already been announced by the Mayor as the fixed cost. This led to many cut-backs in the project to remain within that budget.

This city has a history of mismanagement of LRT projects. The North-South O-Train Expansion project was simply the first.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Catenary

Clark Griswold. Clark W. Griswold Jr. in fact.

Thanks. I corrected the error.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa city hall's harsh message control is the real scandal
The LRT report isn't the biggest problem; the fact that the mayor, council and staff make it hard for the public to get meaningful information is.

Randall Denley
Dec 06, 2022 • 8 hours ago • 3 minute read

The report of the public inquiry into Ottawa’s LRT fiasco certainly made for great headlines, with its claims of “malfeasance” and “egregious violations of public trust.”

The problem is the standards implied by the commissioner’s comments. In Justice William Hourigan’s world, politicians, bureaucrats and even corporations should be expected to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth at all times, always placing the public interest above their own.

It’s a nice idea, but it is difficult to imagine where, in the course of human history, such conditions have existed. One certainly won’t find them in our federal or provincial legislatures, where spin and obfuscation are the norm.

By the standards of our senior levels of government, the actions of former mayor Jim Watson and senior city staff barely qualify as misdemeanours. In his report, Hourigan is harshly critical of former city manager Steve Kanellakos for not giving councillors the full story about the difficulties involved in meeting the city’s reliability standards during the trial runs of the new train.

Here are the shocking details: On Kanellakos’s authority, the city accepted 96 per cent average dependability for the best nine of 12 days of train-running trials, rather than the perhaps unrealistic 98 per cent reliability for 12 consecutive days that the city had agreed to in 2019. The 96 per cent standard was what had been initially accepted by the city in 2017.

According to the commission report, failure to share this information “prevented councillors from fulfilling their statutory duties to the people of Ottawa.” What, exactly, would councillors have done with the missing information? The widely shared desire was to get the trains in operation, not find new reasons to hold up the long-delayed start of service.

The commissioner is also critical of the fact that key information was known only to Watson, Kanellakos, former transportation general manager John Manconi, and then-transit commission chair Coun. Allan Hubley. As the city’s lawyers pointed out, that’s normal operating procedure in the municipal sector. As mayor and committee chair, Watson and Hubley would normally receive more information than their council colleagues.

The work of the rest of council was essentially done when they approved the LRT plan and its budget, then delegated implementation authority to Kanellakos.

Hourigan does criticize the major international corporations that failed to deliver a reliable system according to schedule, which is the main problem, but he reserves most of his venom for city politicians and staff.

While Hourigan’s criticisms of the Watson way of doing things are arguably off-base in this particular instance, there is a secrecy and control problem that was outside the scope of the commissioner’s work.

When Watson became mayor in 2010, the nature of city government here changed fundamentally. During his time in provincial politics, Watson appeared to develop a penchant for message control and spin.

The city budget was transformed into a meaningless mass of numbers, rather than an annual accounting of what the public was getting for its money. Performance reporting became mostly a thing of the past, especially in regard to OC Transpo and the state of the city’s assets.

It used to be possible for the media to interview senior city staffers about issues and projects on which they were the experts. That has been replaced by a system of emailed questions that eventually produce a statement attributable to someone, but which are frequently non-responsive to the actual questions.

In short, under Watson the public was told what he wanted it to know, and nothing more.

Senior city staff were willing to go along with the culture of secrecy and information control because it made their jobs easier. Councillors could have demanded more information, but they rarely did, for the same reason.

That’s the real scandal of the Watson regime at city hall, not the LRT situation, where both staff and politicians did their best to resolve a problem that was largely not of their making and beyond their ability to control.

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

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/de...e-real-scandal

[daud]

This article is like Deja Vu:


There's no 'credible plan' to complete the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, confidential documents say

They also say the project keeps missing deadlines due to "ongoing underperformance."

Eglinton Crosstown LRT will be delayed by about a year, source says
The documents show at some point the provincial agencies raised concerns about what they call "significant deficiencies" in some work completed, but it's not clear if those issues have been resolved.

Some specific issues are detailed, including concerns surrounding seepage that could lead to leaks and mould, and whether it's safe for the trains to operate along curves on the track.

"There are some very, very serious obstacles here that are just appalling at this stage," said Colle, who represents Ward 8, Eglinton-Lawrence.

"It's a never-ending mess that's costing the people of Ontario billions of dollars."

The three companies that make up the consortium that built the Confederation Line are three of the four that make up Crosslinx.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...-lrt-1.6675131

[rocketphish]

Ex-mayor Jim Watson says he accepts 'full responsibility for the project's shortcomings'
"That said, the system we purchased did not meet our expectations, and for that I apologize wholeheartedly to the residents of Ottawa and to our transit users in particular."

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Dec 09, 2022 • 12 minutes ago • 3 minute read

In his first public comments since the release of the bombshell LRT public inquiry report, former mayor Jim Watson apologized to Ottawa transit users for the Confederation Line system not meeting expectations and took “full responsibility” for shortcomings of the largest infrastructure project in the city’s history.

He also praised the contributions and integrity of now former city manager Steve Kanellakos, who quit two days before the release of the report that contained harsh words about the conduct of both men in the lead-up to the LRT launch in 2019.

In a statement sent to media Friday, Watson said he read the report by inquiry commissioner Justice William Hourigan upon returning from “a long-planned vacation.”

Among the conclusions of the 637-page report, published Nov. 30, was that information about the trial running of the Confederation Line not shared by Watson and senior city staff amounted to an “egregious” violation of the public trust.

Watson was also pointed to as a source of pressure to get the system open, which the commission cited as a factor contributing to its public launch despite having reliability problems, and was criticized by the commission for directing staff to take a “design-to-budget” approach to the project. This was a mistake, the commission said, that pressured staff and tied the city to a $2.1-billion figure, campaigned on by the mayor in 2010, “that was not a budget at all, but rather an early estimate provided before any preliminary engineering was done, one that was subject to a 25 per cent margin of error and did not account for inflation.”

“At the end of the day, I take full responsibility for the project’s shortcomings,” Watson wrote in his statement.

“Since we started planning the LRT system in 2010, my goal was always to ensure that the City of Ottawa delivered a safe and reliable LRT system. Throughout the years, I have never veered from this objective. That said, the system we purchased did not meet our expectations, and for that I apologize wholeheartedly to the residents of Ottawa and to our transit users in particular.”

Watson noted that the inquiry commissioner found that Rideau Transit Group, the private-sector consortium contracted to build and maintain the LRT system, “was at fault on many fronts throughout the project” and that, “while there were many challenges that followed the launch of the system, LRT has been running well since March of this year, with a reliability rating of approximately 99 (per cent).”

While Watson used the statement to thank all city staff for work in delivering the project, he reserved a particular thank-you for Kanellakos “for his steadfast leadership, professionalism and integrity, as well as his delivery of numerous city-building projects during my time as Mayor.”

The public inquiry report concluded that Kanellakos, the city’s top bureaucrat since 2016, made a “deliberate effort” to mislead council on the decision to lower testing criteria for the LRT system before its launch and on the results of that testing.

Watson, meanwhile, “had accurate information about trial running and the decision to change the testing criteria, but failed to provide that information to Council” — which could have acted on it, the report said.

“Thus, the conduct of senior city staff and the mayor irreparably compromised the statutory oversight function of Council,” the report stated in a section detailing a long list of reasons for the problems with the Confederation Line project.

The report also suggested that Kanellakos, Watson and former city transit boss John Manconi were dishonest with the commission in explaining why it was appropriate not to give council information about what was happening with trial running. Their reasoning, the commission felt, “smacks of an obvious attempt to justify the wrongful withholding of information retroactively and dishonestly.”

In Friday’s statement, Watson wrote that Kanellakos was “one of the most honest and dedicated public servants I have had the opportunity to work with during my time in politics.

“His departure is a great loss to the City, and I want to thank him for his close to four decades of service to our community.”

In conclusion, Watson wrote that, “despite the early implementation challenges, I believe that Council made the right decision in unanimously approving Stage 1 LRT given the long-term transit, economic and environmental benefits.”

tblewett@postmedia.com

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...s-shortcomings

[Richard Eade]

It is easy for Watson to say that he takes "full responsibility" when there really are no consequences. I wonder if he would be so accepting of the responsibility if he knew that it meant he was going to jail for ten years, or if it meant that he would be sued for 100s of millions of dollars?

Watson was one of the people that, in the opinion of the justice presiding over the inquiry, was saying things that sounded as if they were made up after the fact to justify a wrong. My opinion is that most people who try to worm out of trouble for knowingly doing something wrong, would not be the people who genuinely want to take responsibility, if it means that there are serious repercussions - despite what sometimes happens in Hallmark movies or on television.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

It is easy for Watson to say that he takes "full responsibility" when there really are no consequences. I wonder if he would be so accepting of the responsibility if he knew that it meant he was going to jail for ten years, or if it meant that he would be sued for 100s of millions of dollars?

Watson was one of the people that, in the opinion of the justice presiding over the inquiry, was saying things that sounded as if they were made up after the fact to justify a wrong. My opinion is that most people who try to worm out of trouble for knowingly doing something wrong, would not be the people who genuinely want to take responsibility, if it means that there are serious repercussions - despite what sometimes happens in Hallmark movies or on television.

He's taking "full responsibility", but he's not. He's just "taking responsibility" for the system not meeting expectations (which it just about is now). He's really just blaming RTG. No apology for his role in the campaign of lies, deception and secrecy.

[rocketphish]

An annotated version of Jim Watson's LRT inquiry statement
The former Ottawa mayor takes 'full responsibility,' sort of

Bruce Deachman, Ottawa Citizen
Dec 13, 2022 • 1 hour ago • 4 minute read

On Friday, former mayor Jim Watson released a statement in which he assumed “full responsibility” for the shortcomings of Phase 1 of the city’s LRT system. Watson’s letter followed the release of Justice William Hourigan’s fairly scathing final report on the matter, and while Watson claimed culpability, he was very careful in what he said, and how he said it. Here, then, is a slightly annotated version.

“For immediate release [on a late Friday afternoon when I hope you won’t notice. I think we can all agree this is old news after the weekend]

Upon my return from a long-planned vacation [Long-planned, as in I tentatively booked this trip as soon as I heard the word “inquiry”] I read the report produced by Justice Hourigan following the provincial public inquiry into Stage 1 of Ottawa’s LRT system.

At the end of the day, I take full responsibility for the project’s shortcomings. [Let me be clear: I’m speaking here only about the project’s shortcomings, not any shortcomings of my own that may ultimately have caused some of the project’s less-than-favourable outcomes. I’m a modern-day version of Titanic captain Edward Smith; he went down with the ship, but did he ever REALLY take responsibility for colliding with the iceberg?] Since we started planning the LRT system in 2010, my goal was always to ensure that the City of Ottawa delivered a safe and reliable LRT system [But “goals” can be so fleeting, am I right? I mean, despite my “goals,” we DID hurriedly push out what was a decidedly unreliable LRT system]. Throughout the years, I have never veered from this objective. That said, the system we purchased did not meet our expectations [But how could we possibly have known, right? Sure, we lowered testing standards to ensure the system would pass, and we rejected RTG’s recommendation to have a soft launch to work out any kinks, but it’s not like there was a warning on the LRT box, like the one on cigarette packages], and for that I apologize wholeheartedly to the residents of Ottawa and to our transit users in particular.

I also want to acknowledge [but definitely not thank] the Commissioner for bringing forward a series of recommendations for the City’s consideration. Many of the findings outlined in the report are generally complimentary [or should that say “complementary”] to those contained in the report unanimously approved by City Council on November 9.

The Commissioner found that Rideau Transit Group (RTG), the consortium that won the contract to build, operate and maintain the LRT system, was at fault on many fronts throughout the project [In fact, if you just do a search for “RTG” in the report, they come out looking VERY bad, indeed. Never mind the part where I long ago expressed a “preference for having experts from the private sector oversee construction of the OLRT1 to avoid ‘meddling’ by politicians and avoid cost overruns and delays,” or where I withhold important details from council, or how my obsessive “on time and on budget” mantra helped politicize the process, or… I’m losing track. Where was I? Right. This is mostly on RTG].

While there were many challenges that followed the launch of the system [I use the word “challenges” because “screwups” would be indelicate], LRT has been running well since March of this year, with a reliability rating of approximately 99% [I never thought I’d say this, but thank god for the COVID-19 pandemic, which not only reduced ridership numbers, but also the scrutiny].

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all City staff for their tremendous work over the last decade to deliver the largest infrastructure project in our city’s history since the construction of the Rideau Canal [I reference the Rideau Canal for a couple of reasons: one, because talk about a big infrastructure project that’s stood the test of time, right? One day, they might name things after me, just like we did with Colonel By. Also, did you know that By was pilloried for cost overruns on that project and accused of misusing public funds? A Court of Inquiry fully exonerated him, as I expect time will do for me]. I particularly want to thank Steve Kanellakos [I’m not going down into this sinkhole alone] for his steadfast leadership, professionalism and integrity, as well as his delivery of numerous city-building projects during my time as Mayor. Steve is one of the most honest and dedicated public servants I have had the opportunity to work with during my time in politics [and I sincerely hope that the culture I created at city hall didn’t in any way influence his decision to mislead council]. His departure is a great loss to the City, and I want to thank him for his close to four decades of service to our community.

Despite the early implementation challenges [again, screwups], I believe that Council made the right decision in unanimously approving Stage 1 LRT given the long-term transit, economic and environmental benefits [and given the limited information I gave them at the time].”

-30-


https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...uiry-statement

[rocketphish]

Desroches: Ottawa's LRT — I'm aiming for enhanced, constructive oversight
We cannot let the report of the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Public Inquiry sit on the shelf and gather dust.

Steve Desroches
Published Jan 13, 2023 • Last updated 3 hours ago • 3 minute read

New year, new councillors: We asked the new members of city council to lay out some of their priorities for 2023. Today: Riverside South-Findlay Creek Coun. Steve Desroches.


Recent events with Ottawa’s LRT have many residents and city representatives asking valid questions about the current and future system. In addition, the report of the Ottawa Light Rail Transit (LRT) Public Inquiry was difficult to read. I think many would agree that Ottawa residents and transit riders deserve better.

The LRT system is tremendously important to our city’s future, particularly for the residents of Riverside South and Findlay Creek, who have been waiting more than a decade for the first dedicated rapid transit system to serve southeast Ottawa residents.

We cannot let the public inquiry commissioner’s report sit on the shelf and gather dust. It is time for city leaders to focus on learning the critical lessons and implementing the appropriate recommendations from the commission. The first step toward this goal was city council’s decision to establish a new LRT subcommittee. I welcome the opportunity to serve as the new subcommittee chair and I would like to outline a few initial observations in my new role.

This new committee will help ensure enhanced oversight at city hall by focusing exclusively on the LRT projects rather than overloading two standing committees that are already charged with a wide range of other non-LRT matters such as housing, key infrastructure and public services. We also need an important analysis from city staff on how the City of Ottawa will implement the long list of recommendations of the commission to improve governance and project management.

However, improved accountability and oversight are not just the responsibility of our municipal government. It’s important to remember that while the commissioner had much to say about the city’s role in the past and future, there were also a number of important observations and recommendations directed at the contractor and the consortium, as well as the provincial government.

The commissioner was adamant that all parties must put the public good at the forefront of all decisions. I’m hoping that the Rideau Transit Group and its related companies will commit meaningfully to working more effectively with the city and adopting the commission’s recommendations. I’m also hoping the consortium of companies will use the new LRT subcommittee as a platform to demonstrate how they are focused on the safety and reliability of the system.

Despite best efforts, there may still be unwelcome news around Phase 2 testing or deadlines. Ottawa’s LRT system is a massive, multi-billion-dollar logistical endeavour, the largest infrastructure project in our city’s history. It’s inevitable that it will face obstacles and challenges that will require openness about how they are addressed.

That doesn’t mean Ottawa residents should lower their expectations. Residents have paid for and deserve an excellent service. Nor does it mean city councillors should micromanage the current system or the construction of future phases. The focus of the LRT subcommittee, and by extension city council, should be to deliver effective oversight, review testing results, and observe engineering fixes with the support of an independent technical team engaged by the city.

Recent setbacks have been discouraging after what appeared to be a promising long stretch of sound service. We have a lot of work to do to implement the commission’s recommendations and ensure we have the appropriate oversight and accountability for Phase 2 and beyond. But with renewed oversight and focus, we can help deliver a safe and reliable service for passengers and restore confidence not just in our transit system but in our municipal government. I look forward to helping with this important cause as best I can in my new role.


Steve Desroches is the chair of the LRT subcommittee, and city councillor for Riverside South-Findlay Creek.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/de...tive-oversight

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Desroches: Ottawa's LRT — I'm aiming for enhanced, constructive oversight
We cannot let the report of the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Public Inquiry sit on the shelf and gather dust.

Steve Desroches
Published Jan 13, 2023 • Last updated 3 hours ago • 3 minute read

New year, new councillors: We asked the new members of city council to lay out some of their priorities for 2023. Today: Riverside South-Findlay Creek Coun. Steve Desroches.


Recent events with Ottawa’s LRT have many residents and city representatives asking valid questions about the current and future system. In addition, the report of the Ottawa Light Rail Transit (LRT) Public Inquiry was difficult to read. I think many would agree that Ottawa residents and transit riders deserve better. After spending $10B, our train system in an exclusive right of way should be competitive with car travel at least within the corridor itself.

The LRT system is tremendously important to our city’s future, particularly for the residents of Riverside South and Findlay Creek, who have been waiting more than a decade for the first dedicated rapid transit system to serve southeast Ottawa residents.

We cannot let the public inquiry commissioner’s report sit on the shelf and gather dust. It is time for city leaders to focus on learning the critical lessons and implementing the appropriate recommendations from the commission. The first step toward this goal was city council’s decision to establish a new LRT subcommittee. I welcome the opportunity to serve as the new subcommittee chair and I would like to outline a few initial observations in my new role.

This new committee will help ensure enhanced oversight at city hall by focusing exclusively on the LRT projects rather than overloading two standing committees that are already charged with a wide range of other non-LRT matters such as housing, key infrastructure and public services. We also need an important analysis from city staff on how the City of Ottawa will implement the long list of recommendations of the commission to improve governance and project management.

However, improved accountability and oversight are not just the responsibility of our municipal government. It’s important to remember that while the commissioner had much to say about the city’s role in the past and future, there were also a number of important observations and recommendations directed at the contractor and the consortium, as well as the provincial government.

The commissioner was adamant that all parties must put the public good at the forefront of all decisions. I’m hoping that the Rideau Transit Group and its related companies will commit meaningfully to working more effectively with the city and adopting the commission’s recommendations. I’m also hoping the consortium of companies will use the new LRT subcommittee as a platform to demonstrate how they are focused on the safety and reliability of the system.

Despite best efforts, there may still be unwelcome news around Phase 2 testing or deadlines. Ottawa’s LRT system is a massive, multi-billion-dollar logistical endeavour, the largest infrastructure project in our city’s history. It’s inevitable that it will face obstacles and challenges that will require openness about how they are addressed.

That doesn’t mean Ottawa residents should lower their expectations. Residents have paid for and deserve an excellent service. Nor does it mean city councillors should micromanage the current system or the construction of future phases. The focus of the LRT subcommittee, and by extension city council, should be to deliver effective oversight, review testing results, and observe engineering fixes with the support of an independent technical team engaged by the city.

Recent setbacks have been discouraging after what appeared to be a promising long stretch of sound service. We have a lot of work to do to implement the commission’s recommendations and ensure we have the appropriate oversight and accountability for Phase 2 and beyond. But with renewed oversight and focus, we can help deliver a safe and reliable service for passengers and restore confidence not just in our transit system but in our municipal government. I look forward to helping with this important cause as best I can in my new role.


Steve Desroches is the chair of the LRT subcommittee, and city councillor for Riverside South-Findlay Creek.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/de...tive-oversight

This statement is worrisome. It shows that while preventing shut-downs is the highest priority, it appears that long-term performance issues (go-slow orders, station delays) are not fully registering with our politicians. We need both a reliable and efficient system. Both are critical to the long-term success of LRT. Slow trains will encourage people to drive especially on longer trips. After spending $10B and with an entirely exclusive right of way, LRT should be competitive with car travel within the corridor itself.