Denley: Ottawa's flawed transit system built on what people once wanted
Article content
Article content
In fact, it's almost the opposite. The light-rail decisions that are mocked today were both popular and rational when they were made.
Article content
Ottawans wanted the same kind of rail service that other cities had already had for years. To accomplish that, they kept electing and re-electing politicians who promised to make the dream a reality.
Article content
Article content
People look back now and lament the loss of what they remember as a much better bus system, but there was a good reason why it had to change. It's hard to imagine now, but 25 years ago, buses clogged downtown streets at rush hours, particularly on Albert and Slater streets.
Article content
At the time, OC Transpo was moving about 10,000 people an hour in each direction downtown at rush hours. The streets were near capacity and transit ridership was growing rapidly. Light rail in a downtown tunnel was ultimately seen as the most viable solution to that problem. It would enable OC Transpo to move up to 24,000 passengers an hour each way.
Article content
It's fair to say that the city's first train decision wasn't the best. Then-mayor Bob Chiarelli wanted light rail that would run from downtown to Barrhaven, but with no tunnel. It was a short-term solution, and one that went north-south when Ottawa's main commute was east and west to downtown. The federal government refused to support the plan.
Article content
Article content
In 2006, Ottawa voters rejected Chiarelli's plan and elected as mayor Larry O'Brien, who became a champion of a downtown tunnel and an east-west route. It was a plan that was more costly but also more rational. O'Brien argued that trains in a tunnel would be faster and more reliable. It seemed plausible.
Article content
Article content
The decision to go with rail was widely regarded as the big-city thing to do. Skeptics, including me, questioned the high capital cost, but enthusiasm won the day. The first stage of the LRT was under way.
Article content
In 2010, voters elected Jim Watson as mayor. He'd been critical of the train plan, but quickly changed his mind when he figured out that others liked it. In the end, Watson became an enthusiastic supporter of light rail.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
a day ago
- CTV News
OC Transpo scrapping youth passes on Sept. 1, charging 11-19 year-olds the same fare as adults
It will soon be the end of the road for OC Transpo's youth pass, as the City of Ottawa gets set to scrap the discounted pass for 11- to 19-year-olds at the end of August. In a memo to council, acting OC Transpo general manager Troy Charter reminded councillors the youth monthly pass will be discontinued as of September 1. 'Customers who currently have a Youth concession set on their Presto card will be charged an adult monthly pass on September 1,' Charter said. The youth monthly pass costs $104 a month, while an adult monthly pass costs $135 a month. Council approved the elimination of the youth monthly pass as part of the 2025 City of Ottawa budget in a bid to reduce a proposed budget deficit. The budget also eliminated free transit for 11 and 12-year-olds. A report for the Ottawa Student Transportation Authority shows the 2025-26 draft budget projected a $4.8 million increase in public transit costs due to the elimination of free transit for students 12 and under and scrapping the youth fare pass in September.
Ottawa Citizen
3 days ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Adam: Fix the big flaw in this provincial bill to remove bad councillors from office
The unanimous consent provision in Ontario's Bill 9, the proposed municipal accountability legislation triggered by allegations of sexual assault against former Ottawa Coun. Rick Chiarelli, must be removed if the law if going to mean anything. Article content The bill, which aims to standardize the municipal code of conduct and lay out the process by which a councillor who commits serious misconduct can be removed and disqualified from office, is a paper tiger as drafted. Removal from office would require a recommendation from a municipal integrity commissioner, approval from an Ontario integrity commissioner, and finally, the backing of a unanimous vote in council. Article content Article content Article content That requirement for unanimity stands in the way of accountability, and it's no surprise that many, including the two women whose complaints against Chiarelli sparked the legislation, rejected it. Article content 'I am doubtful of its ability to provide meaningful change,' Stephanie Dobbs, one of the complainants, said of the bill. 'Having the final decision return to be voted on at a council is frankly ludicrous.' Nancy Cairns, the other complainant, said the bill 'risks becoming another broken process cloaked in good intentions.' Article content The province should listen to them. Article content The problem with unanimous consent is that it empowers one person to undercut the entire process, no matter how egregious the behaviour under scrutiny. Municipal Affairs Minister Rob Flack has defended the provision, saying: 'The process outlined balances the need for external influence, while preserving democratic accountability at the local level.' With the greatest respect, minister, that's ridiculous. Instead of preserving democratic accountability, what this requirement does is create room for an abuser to remain in office and exact revenge on accusers, or continue the harassment. The minister appears happy to let such a person remain in office until the next election, however long that might be. Think of what that says to women caught up in such a situation. Article content Article content In Ottawa, sexual harassment allegations broke into the open in 2020 when the city's integrity commissioner investigated a number of claims by women who accused Chiarelli of improper behaviour. He was never charged, and has denied any misconduct, but the integrity commissioner found Chiarelli had indeed broken the council's code of conduct, and his pay was suspended for 450 days, the maximum allowed by law. But he remained in office and did not run in the following election. Failure to remove him earlier prompted calls for tougher accountability legislation. Article content Article content The government clearly understands that on such matters, it doesn't have all the answers; that's why a legislative committee launched public hearings across Ontario. Many have spoken and the emerging consensus appears to be that unanimous council consent would defeat the entire purpose. If the government is not willing to listen, what then was the purpose of the hearings? Just a show?
Calgary Herald
4 days ago
- Calgary Herald
Is Calgary creating inner-city sacrifice zones with its new housing policy?
With its rapid new housing policy, Calgary may be creating inner-city sacrifice zones. Article content Mostly associated with environmental destruction, 'sacrifice zones' are areas permanently changed by heavy alterations (usually to a negative degree) or economic disinvestment, often through locally unwanted land use. Article content Article content A prime example of a sacrifice zone is Appalachia in the United States, where the tops of mountains have been blown off to mine a resource deemed important. What is rarely discussed is how the path of destruction upends the lives of the people living around the zone. Usually, they don't have the resources to fight the destruction, as moneyed interests are too powerful to defeat. And the citizenry turns a blind eye because the need for the resource is more important than the inconvenience of the destruction. Article content Article content Sacrifice zones also occur in real estate. When Hurricane Katrina breached the New Orleans levees, a large part of the city was under water. Rather than helping residents recover their homes, the U.S. government turned the downtown into a sacrifice zone, making way for the development of high-end hotels and eateries. Article content Article content Calgary's approach to creating sacrifice zones is more subtle and is a response to Canada's urgent affordable housing crisis. In procuring $228 million through the Housing Accelerator Fund, the City committed to fast-tracking construction of over 6,800 housing units within three years. In Calgary, one in five households cannot afford where they live, and one in 10 households are at risk of homelessness. This significant need for affordable housing feeds into Calgary's determination to create sacrifice zones in the inner city, but I suggest these zones will not alleviate the housing or the affordability crises because they will be too expensive to buy (more than $700,000) or rent monthly (over $3,500) unless there is a reckoning like we are seeing in the Toronto condo market. Article content Article content Calgary's approach to this problem is to build 'middle housing', represented by multi-unit or clustered housing types. To stop urban sprawl, this type of new development is focused on the inner city and, in particular, neighbourhoods with proximity to LRT and BRT routes. This third driver also primes Calgary's housing plan. Article content The development push is being driven by developers facilitated by the city. Whereas inner-city developments were previously not attractive to developers, the city has sweetened the pot by allowing compounds (four up/four down eight-plexes) on lots previously having a single house. To further appeal, the amount of on-site parking has been reduced by a lot, meaning that more cars line the streets. Then there's the garbage cans. Take a walk around redeveloped inner-city neighbourhoods and see the garbage cans lined up along laneways, blocking access to garages, which means, you guessed it, more cars on the street. Instead of fitting in, these developments are forced in, and I submit that they will destroy the neighbourhood that once was, resulting in a sacrifice zone. Article content These units will help address Calgary's housing crisis, but at what cost? After all, that is what sacrifice zones are all about, providing a need (coal, housing) and ignoring the destruction (mountains, inner-city neighbourhoods). The cost is in inner-city neighbourhoods, beautiful areas that are treed, green, spacious and peaceful. Developers will continue to develop until every tree is gone, and until every last inch of land is covered by a building, garage or cement sidewalk. Article content While no bulldozers are knocking down entire communities, Calgary's inner-city neighbourhoods are facing a slow erosion – one lot at a time – divide and conquer, the oldest play in the playbook. Long-standing communities have been rezoned for high-density development, disrupting all that is good about them. Like Appalachia, Calgary's inner core may soon serve the needs of others at the cost of its residents. There is a better way to densify inner city neighbourhoods and protect what is beautiful about them, so that they continue to be places that people want to live in. I hope the city figures that out before it is too late.
