Ottawa Municipal Election 2010 [Archive]

waterloowarrior

Jan 4, 2010, 6:38 PM

We have our first candidate!

Alex Cullen first to announce bid to be mayor
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Alex+Cullen+first+announce+mayor/2404235/story.html

BY KATE JAIMET, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJANUARY 4, 2010 12:03 PM

OTTAWA — Bay Councillor Alex Cullen declared his candidacy for mayor of Ottawa Monday, with promises to raise taxes, oppose Lansdowne Live, support a downtown transit tunnel, and stop the flow of sewage into the Ottawa River.

"You will see a tax increase and you will see a tax increase that will be close to inflation," Cullen said, naming transit, social housing and recycling as areas that will require public investment.

And he criticized mayor Larry O'Brien's broken electoral promise of "zero means zero" tax increases.

"Part of what I'm bringing to the table is honesty," Cullen said. "It's disingenuous to tell the public you can have your cake and eat it, too. You can maintain services without raising taxes."

Replying to a question in French, Cullen said it's possible that the 2011 tax hike could be more than the rate of inflation, but added: "There is always a limit. Taxpayers don't want to pay more than eight per cent or 10 per cent. That's unacceptable."

Cullen, who has held a seat on city council for 15 years, said he will not accept union or corporate contributions to his campaign, despite the need to raise an estimated $400,000 to conduct the race. He supports banning such donations for candidates running for municipal office, and is also in favour of a lobbyist registry to add transparency to City Hall proceedings.

Cullen said that one of his top priorities as mayor will be to build a rapid transit system in Ottawa, including a downtown rail tunnel. He will also push ahead with multi-million dollar initiatives to improve the sewage system and stop sewage overflows into the Ottawa River.

"We are the owners of a legacy that was built before these issues became important. We're going to have to deal with it, and the public understand this cannot be done for free."

Asked whether there was any area where he would cut city services to save money, Cullen could not name one.

"I'm not running to cut a service,"

Cullen criticized his expected opponent, O'Brien, as a "weak mayor" and said that O'Brien's recent vow — to pre-emptively lock out O.C. Transpo workers if faced with the possibility of another winter strike — was "amazing, astonishing, and absolutely repugnant."

"Under my administration there will be no lockout. We have the tools to reach a settlement," he said.

Cullen, whose tenure on council since 1991 has been interrupted only by a brief stint in provincial politics, said he believes he's a "competitive" candidate. However, he would not completely rule out dropping out of the mayoralty race and returning to run in Bay Ward if polls in the summer show him unlikely to win.

"Yeah, that theoretical possibility is there. But I'm not interested. I've been on council for 15 years... I've enjoyed my time, but it's time to move up," he said. "I'm running for mayor and that's my intention. I don't anticipate running for another position."

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

and from the CBC http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/01/04/ottawa-mayor-cullen-election.html
As of Monday at noon, longtime Kanata community activist Allan Hubley had already announced that he was running for city councillor in Kanata South, which is currently represented by Peggy Feltmate. Catholic school board trustee Stephen Blais said he was running for city councillor in Cumberland ward, a seat currently held by Rob Jellett.

Ottawan

Jan 4, 2010, 8:36 PM

Proof Sheet

Jan 4, 2010, 8:51 PM

I'm wondering who everyone predicts will be the other mayoral contenders. Below are my own thoughts:

Declared Candidate
Alex Cullen

Candidates I Believe WILL Run
Larry O'Brian
Jim Watson
Peter Hume

Candidates I Believe MAY Run
Dianne Deans
Jan Harder (If for some reason O'Brian does not run)
Brian McGarry
Jim Durell
Terry Kilrea (he may have no chance, but is crazy enough to try anyway)
Bob Chiarelli (not sure how well he's actually enjoying retirement)

I agree with the 1st 4 you listed (Cullen through to Hume)...I have significant doubts regarding McGarry as he seems to never have the conviction to go through with a long drawn out campaign.

Now if only Holmes and Doucet were to run and therefore prevent them from being on council (we know they wouldn't win...and I have high doubts about Cullen's success).

Of the final list I believe only Diane Deans would run and maybe Kilrea (although he wouldn't have a hope either).

Dado

Jan 5, 2010, 1:07 AM

I thought Kilrea was going to run in Bay Ward... with Cullen gone it would be open.

The more councillors that run for mayor, the better. That means fewer can return to Council :tup:

As an aside, I think it's somewhat daft that a person can't run for councillor and mayor at the same time and then if they win the mayorship step down from being councillor (assuming they won that too).

Kitchissippi

Jan 5, 2010, 3:09 AM

As an aside, I think it's somewhat daft that a person can't run for councillor and mayor at the same time and then if they win the mayorship step down from being councillor (assuming they won that too).

But then who would have to pay for holding a by-election? Plus it would be unfair to the candidates in that ward to shoulder the cost of another campaign

matty14

Jan 5, 2010, 5:14 AM

O-Town Hockey

Jan 5, 2010, 5:49 AM

Can you guys imagine how different the atmosphere would be at City Hall had Munter been elected mayor (he had my vote)?

reidjr

Jan 5, 2010, 4:59 PM

Cullen says he will "oppose Lansdowne Live". How about instead of telling us what he's NOT going to do with Lansdowne, tell us what he plans TO do with the land. For that reason alone, he has lost my vote... to be fair though, I would have never voted for him in the first place, I would take George Bush as my mayor before him.

P.S. Any news on whether or not Old Man Clive is retiring???

What people are assuming is cullien is aginst landsdown that means he is aginst the stadium.While in fact ihe isnot against a stadium i beleave he would support the city building a area at bayview from my understanding.I can see it now he is elected mayor people go crazy thinking they will be no stadium yet i bet not only would we have a new arena and stadium we would aslo have landdsdown turned into a park.

matty14

Jan 5, 2010, 5:08 PM

Can you guys imagine how different the atmosphere would be at City Hall had Munter been elected mayor (he had my vote)?

Seriously. You wouldn't ask some politician to run a business, so why would you ask a businessman to run a city?

matty14

Jan 5, 2010, 5:14 PM

What people are assuming is cullien is aginst landsdown that means he is aginst the stadium.While in fact ihe isnot against a stadium i beleave he would support the city building a area at bayview from my understanding.I can see it now he is elected mayor people go crazy thinking they will be no stadium yet i bet not only would we have a new arena and stadium we would aslo have landdsdown turned into a park.

I understand that, but what I mean is his whole Lansdowne platform is "oppose Lansdowne Live". Well that's great, that gives me the impression that he just wants to get rid of this deal and leave Frank Clair to rot and crumble while we spend twice as much money building "Cullen's toy" stadium at Bayview. Not to mention the cost of tearing down both Frank Clair and the Civic Centre to turn it into a park that only a select few residents (mostly from the Glebe area) will use. How about give me stuff like what he plans to do with the area (re-instate the "design competition" that never existed, explore other business options, etc. etc.) and then maybe I will change my mind about voting for him. Unlikely though.

EDIT: Sorry, "Urbandale Centre" not Civic Centre.

reidjr

Jan 5, 2010, 5:53 PM

I understand that, but what I mean is his whole Lansdowne platform is "oppose Lansdowne Live". Well that's great, that gives me the impression that he just wants to get rid of this deal and leave Frank Clair to rot and crumble while we spend twice as much money building "Cullen's toy" stadium at Bayview. Not to mention the cost of tearing down both Frank Clair and the Civic Centre to turn it into a park that only a select few residents (mostly from the Glebe area) will use. How about give me stuff like what he plans to do with the area (re-instate the "design competition" that never existed, explore other business options, etc. etc.) and then maybe I will change my mind about voting for him. Unlikely though.

EDIT: Sorry, "Urbandale Centre" not Civic Centre.

Don't get me wrong i am not voting for him never have and never well.My point i am trying to make is peopel assume he is aginst a stadium while in fact he does not seem to be.So it will cost us more money to build a satdium likely funded 100% by the city at bayview then to turn landsdown into a park were look at around $300 million just for that if some got there way.

Dado

Jan 5, 2010, 5:56 PM

But then who would have to pay for holding a by-election? Plus it would be unfair to the candidates in that ward to shoulder the cost of another campaign

Marking ballots with first and second choices could avoid this issue.

Perhaps the mayor should just be [s]elected by Council themselves rather than the whole population. Since the vote of the mayor counts for nothing more than the vote of any one councillor anyway there's not a lot of rationale in having a citywide-elected mayor other than that it gives some people a slightly fuzzy feeling in that people seem to be obsessed with popularity contests. The mayor has very few powers above that of a councillor and the fact that those powers can be delegated quite successfully to individual councillors was proved last year during O'Brien's trial.

The current system has the tendency to devolve into this bizarre dance of "should I / shouldn't I" amongst existing councillors and the potential to lose quite a few decent councillors if their runs for mayor don't work out (not that this is necessarily a problem right now for Ottawa, but in theory it would be).

Imposing term limits would be another way to break this pattern (rather than allowing simultaneous running); councillors would be out anyway after 2 or 3 terms so they'd have nothing to lose if they ran for mayor and they would also be more likely to start building themselves up to be suitable mayoral candidates rather than playing it safe as ward representatives for their entire time on Council.

waterloowarrior

Jan 5, 2010, 10:37 PM

here's the City site with a listing of candidates so far
http://ottawa.ca/city_hall/elections/nominations/index_en.html

Mille Sabords

Jan 6, 2010, 2:16 AM

Can you guys imagine how different the atmosphere would be at City Hall had Munter been elected mayor (he had my vote)?

Well, for one, we wouldn't be working on a subway plan. Turns out Munter's transit plan wasn't the right one just as Chiarelli's wasn't either. O'Brien, for all his troubles with Kilrea, ended up having the best transit plan of the 2006 roster of candidates.

Jamaican-Phoenix

Jan 6, 2010, 4:15 AM

I hope Peter Hume runs. The man has proven to be a capable leader and understands that Ottawa needs to grow up as a city and has supported a lot of good things and good projects. he's also for raising Ottawa's height limits. If he runs, I'd vote for him.

RTWAP

Jan 6, 2010, 5:50 AM

Well, for one, we wouldn't be working on a subway plan. Turns out Munter's transit plan wasn't the right one just as Chiarelli's wasn't either. O'Brien, for all his troubles with Kilrea, ended up having the best transit plan of the 2006 roster of candidates.

He should claim credit and declare it his parting legacy to the city. G'bye.

I hope Peter Hume runs. The man has proven to be a capable leader and understands that Ottawa needs to grow up as a city and has supported a lot of good things and good projects. he's also for raising Ottawa's height limits. If he runs, I'd vote for him.

He seems smart but a little lacking in gravitas to me. I'd love to have a leader that knows how to push things through, how to slide things through and what things should get done.

Dado

Jan 6, 2010, 5:03 PM

:previous:

You want John Baird as mayor? :D

RTWAP

Jan 7, 2010, 9:14 AM

:previous:

You want John Baird as mayor? :D

:P

I have no confidence that he'd know which things to do, and that he'd know how to slide things through. I haven't exactly followed his career closely, but he seems overly partisan for the type of consensus building required of a mayor.

Lakche

Jan 7, 2010, 3:23 PM

... How about give me stuff like what he plans to do with the area (re-instate the "design competition" that never existed, explore other business options, etc. etc.) and then maybe I will change my mind about voting for him. Unlikely though. ...

I was listening to Live 88.5 this morning and they interviewed Alex Cullen.

One of the questions they asked him was what his plan was for Lansdowne Park. He explained he would cancel the Lansdowne Live project and bring back the design competition.

lrt's friend

Jan 7, 2010, 4:52 PM

:P

I have no confidence that he'd know which things to do, and that he'd know how to slide things through. I haven't exactly followed his career closely, but he seems overly partisan for the type of consensus building required of a mayor.

I think this an excellent point. Consensus building and persuasive abilities to move forward an agenda are critical for the success of a mayor. This should be a significant factor in assessing each candidate, as well as the platform that he or she presents.

The more strident and ideological a candidate is, the less likely he or she will be able to achieve a consensus. This has certainly applied to Larry O'Brien.

lrt's friend

Jan 8, 2010, 2:53 AM

Ottawan

Jan 8, 2010, 3:24 AM

I am awaiting a credible candidate for mayor who will have a fresh vision for the future and a demonstrated ability to do the job. I will be very reluctant to vote for anybody who has been associated with last three years of municipal government, which I have considered to be totally dysfunctional. If a suitable candidate does not come forward, I will probably destroy my ballot.

So long as you don't not-vote. I have no respect for people who complain about their government, then do not take the time to vote. Spoiling a ballot, on the other hand, can make a statement.

reidjr

Jan 8, 2010, 9:32 PM

I have issues with people who don't vote yet feel they have just as much right to complain.I asm sorry but if you don't vote you have no right to complain.

Dado

Jan 8, 2010, 10:55 PM

:previous:

You're not referring to lrt's friend, I hope, and his contemplating spoiling his ballot? Even though it's technically "not voting" a person who spoils a ballot has still taken the effort to go to the polls and cast a ballot, and their act shows up in the turnout statistics, unlike someone who doesn't vote at all. I think someone who spoils a ballot has every right in the world to complain; indeed, the very act of spoiling a ballot could be regarded as a pretty serious complaint against a perceived lack of choices.

reidjr

Jan 9, 2010, 2:32 PM

While i don't think people who spoil there votes in some cases may not care that much but atleast there putting in an effort and yes they have a right to complain.But people that don't go to vote and more or less feel there have the same right to complain those are the ones i have issues with.

waterloowarrior

Jan 11, 2010, 9:02 PM

Watson is going to make an annoucement on whether he'll run tomorrow morning
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Watson+expected+announce+mayoral/2429532/story.html

Jamaican-Phoenix

Jan 12, 2010, 3:02 PM

Watson is going to make an annoucement on whether he'll run tomorrow morning
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Watson+expected+announce+mayoral/2429532/story.html

Well, I heard on the radio this morning. It's official; Jim Watson will run for Mayor.

Kitchissippi

Jan 12, 2010, 3:21 PM

I am completely unimpressed with Watson. I can't recall anything significant he did when he was the mayor of the old City of Ottawa from 1997 to 2000. He did little prepare it for amalgamation, and quit even job a few months before the fact. I find his ideas very vague and never presents a defined vision. His stand on the LRT issue was very lukewarm.

RTWAP

Jan 12, 2010, 4:04 PM

O-Town Hockey

Jan 13, 2010, 4:49 AM

I would take Watson over O'Brien in an instant. He seems to have a genuine interest in the city and wants to see big things happen while preserving the integrity and history of Ottawa. He may not have done much during his last term, but if his campaign revolves around cleaning house and bringing in a new group of progressive thinkers then he has my vote. I guess I will have to wait and see who else decides to run.

If nobody decent runs in Centretown then I may be forced to run myself. For a neighbourhood full of such young and vibrant people and places our representation has been whatever the opposite of young and vibrant is. I guess it's only the old cranks (and myself) that actually get out and vote :(.

waterloowarrior

Jan 13, 2010, 4:50 AM

Chiarelli to announce intentions next week
By SUSAN SHERRING, CITY HALL BUREAU
Last Updated: 12th January 2010, 9:46pm
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/01/12/12441446.html

Will he or won’t he?

Former mayor Bob Chiarelli says he’ll announce his political intentions before the end of next week.

But Chiarelli — who lost the mayor’s race to Larry O’Brien in 2006 and has been encouraged to make a comeback — says his options have grown.

They include not running for anything, running for mayor, or running for the Liberal nomination in Ottawa West-Nepean (which mayoral candidate Jim Watson will soon vacate).

“I may say I’m not prepared to announce my intentions until later like Mayor (Larry) O’Brien has done,” he told the Sun Tuesday night.

He said he still needs to consider his options.

“I’m going to be talking to my family,” he said.

So why would Chiarelli be interested in a return to politics, having been the MPP for Ottawa West, regional chairman, mayor of Ottawa, and now keeping busy as a consultant.

“Why are you interested in reporting on me?” he answered.

Watson’s announcement Tuesday that he’s running for mayor was “very much expected,” Chiarelli said.

“He’s a very formidable candidate. He’s certainly leading the pack, but it’s a long 10 months,” Chiarelli said. “He brings a lot to the table.”

Mike Patton, a former communications assistant to O’Brien, who ran under the Tory banner in Ottawa West-Nepean in the last provincial election and was defeated by Watson, is expected to once again seek the Conservative nomination.

Gordon Skinner quietly entered the mayoral race this week. Coun. Alex Cullen and Robert Gauthier have also filed nomination papers.

Alexander Aronec has signed up to run for the council seat in West Carleton-March. Coun. Eli El-Chantiry currently represents the ward.

susan.sherring@sunmedia.ca

waterloowarrior

Feb 1, 2010, 9:48 PM

Jim Watson is officially in (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Watson+formally+enters+Ottawa+mayoral+race+quits/2508979/story.html)

Diane Holmes will be running (http://centretownnewsonline.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1340&Itemid=126)

Gord Hunter won't seek re-election (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/archive/2010/02/01/councillor-gord-hunter-won-t-seek-re-election.aspx)

lrt's friend

Feb 3, 2010, 1:51 PM

Mayor doesn't want to run again but family urges him to do so

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/columnists/susan_sherring/2010/02/02/12715751.html

This article was followed by a dissing match on CFRA between the Mayor and Sue Sherring in separate interviews. In the end, the mayor agreed that what was published is accurate.

danny the dog

Feb 3, 2010, 3:35 PM

I was checking out the elections website and saw the first candidate for Kitchissippi ward has registered. I've lived here for quite a while and it's the first time I hear of Katherine Hobbs, anyone else heard of her before?

Dado

Feb 3, 2010, 5:47 PM

She would appear to be a freelance writer with an interest in fictional crime writing, at least as a hobby anyway:

http://www.capitalcrimewriters.com/members/memberprofiles/KatherineHobbs.html

http://www.bloodywords2009.com/newsRoom/steeringCommittee/chair.html

bradnixon

Feb 3, 2010, 8:45 PM

Larry did himself no favours in this CFRA interview: http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/OBrien_Sherring_Feb03.mp3. He sounds terribly immature.

waterloowarrior

Feb 3, 2010, 8:48 PM

Larry did himself no favours in this CFRA interview: http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/OBrien_Sherring_Feb03.mp3. He sounds terribly immature.

Here's the Sue Sherring article...
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/columnists/susan_sherring/2010/02/02/12715751.html

While not saying whether he would run again, O’Brien said it’s his hope that “eight or nine” of the sitting councillors aren’t back next term, and he added that anyone who has been around council for “10, 15, 20 years” should be gone.

That group, according to O’Brien, includes Capital Coun. Clive Doucet, but he suggested he would miss Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes if she isn’t back.

As for Bay Coun. Alex Cullen, O’Brien said he doesn’t stand a chance of winning the mayor’s race. However, O’Brien praised Alta Vista Coun. Peter Hume, who’s considering his political future.

He didn’t have many kind words for mayoral candidate Jim Watson, whom he described as a “bland” mayor who did nothing visionary or exciting during his reign. O’Brien said he’d rather be an exciting one-term mayor than a bland two-term mayor.

The followup (http://blog.canoe.ca/cityhall/2010/02/03/it_ain_t_you) is even better

It ain't you

Seems Mayor Larry O'Brien is doing some damage control this morning.

On Tuesday, O'Brien told the Sun there were eight or nine city councillors he hoped wouldn't be returned to office.

This moring, O'Brien sent out an email to Orleans Coun. Bob Monette, Innes Coun. Rainer Bloess, West Carleton-March Coun. Eli El-Chantiry,

Cumberland Coun. Rob Jellett, Stittsville Coun. Shad Qadri and Kanata North Coun. Marianne Wilkinson assuring them they weren't the ones he meant.

"This article was in no way aimed at you," O'Brien wrote, even being kind enough to include my column in his email.

"You are not one of the "eight or nine" I mentioned as people who should not come back."

No word on whether that means he hoped the rest of council are back or not!

gjhall

Feb 3, 2010, 9:13 PM

That leaves 14... Who is on the O'Brien hit list? And who will survivre Survivor: Laurier Avenue...

Georges Bedard
Michel Bellemare
Glenn Brooks
Rick Chiarelli
Alex Cullen
Diane Deans
Steve Desroches
Clive Doucet
Peggy Feltmate
Jan Harder
Gord Hunter
Christine Leadman
Jacques Legendre
Maria McRae
Doug Thompson

Dado

Feb 4, 2010, 1:31 AM

Poor Jasmine.

"Someone. Shoot me. Now. Please."

:Titanic:

Ottawan

Feb 4, 2010, 5:02 AM

If anyone here's ever thought of running, or knows someone who has, you (or they) should check out this website. It's an organization dedicated to leveling the playing field in the upcoming election by helping to give newcomers a better chance against incumbents.

http://fairchance2010.ca/index.html

waterloowarrior

Feb 5, 2010, 3:00 PM

Councillor Feltmate to retire
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/archive/2010/02/05/councillor-peggy-feltmate-to-retire.aspx

The head of the Glen Cairn community association is running, my guess is he'll win it

waterloowarrior

Feb 5, 2010, 5:26 PM

rick chiarelli running again
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/archive/2010/02/05/rick-chiarelli-to-run-again-in-college-ward.aspx

Proof Sheet

Feb 5, 2010, 6:02 PM

rick chiarelli running again
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/archive/2010/02/05/rick-chiarelli-to-run-again-in-college-ward.aspx

Couldn't you flip those last two headlines around.?

waterloowarrior

Feb 6, 2010, 1:35 PM

^haha!

Running
Running/may for Mayor
May not run
Not running
* Probably on the "hit list"

Mayor Larry O-Brien
Councillor Georges Bédard *
Councillor Michel Bellemare
Councillor Rainer Bloess
Councillor Glenn Brooks *
Councillor Rick Chiarelli
Councillor Alex Cullen *
Councillor Diane Deans *
Councillor Steve Desroches
Councillor Clive Doucet *
Councillor Eli El-Chantiry
Councillor Peggy Feltmate *
Councillor Jan Harder
Councillor Diane Holmes
Councillor Peter Hume
Councillor Gord Hunter *
Councillor Rob Jellett
Councillor Christine Leadman *
Councillor Jacques Legendre *
Councillor Maria McRae *
Councillor Bob Monette
Councillor Shad Qadri
Councillor Doug Thompson
Councillor Marianne Wilkinson

Proof Sheet

Feb 6, 2010, 3:41 PM

waterloowarrior

Feb 6, 2010, 3:45 PM

Good summary of the current status. However, the Mayor said he had 8 or 9 on the 'hit' list. Do you think Hunter or Brooks would be on the 'hit' list? Brooks always struck me as a Larry booster and I don't recall Hunter ever being defiant and opposed to anything that Larry was in favour of.

Yeah I wasn't sure about them since they would support him on many issues (except Hunter and transit) but he did say "anyone who has been around council for “10, 15, 20 years” should be gone." I guess that would include another more conservative member of council Doug Thompson. All in all, probably not the best thing to say if you want to get support for your initiatives.

Proof Sheet

Feb 6, 2010, 3:47 PM

Yeah I wasn't sure about them since they would support him on many issues (except Hunter and transit) but he did say "anyone who has been around council for “10, 15, 20 years” should be gone." I guess that would include another more conservative member of council Doug Thompson. All in all, probably not the best thing to say if you want to get support for your initiatives.

Yes, our mayor doesn't really know how to hold on to his allies on Council.

waterloowarrior

Feb 19, 2010, 10:36 PM

'Our Ottawa' takes aim at city council
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa+takes+city+council/2587051/story.html

BY NECO COCKBURN , THE OTTAWA CITIZENFEBRUARY 19, 2010COMMENTS (14)

OTTAWA — Another new group is hoping to change the makeup of Ottawa’s city council when residents cast their votes this fall.

Our Ottawa bills itself as “a non-partisan group of community organizers from rural, urban and suburban areas who care deeply about this city” and says it has more than 200 people “working to bring change to Ottawa.”

The group’s mission is a bit vague at this point, and it’s still coming up with a vision statement that members can agree on, admits Bob Brocklebank, a group member and past president of the Federation of Citizens’ Associations.

Some of the group’s members could decide to run in the Oct. 25 election, and the group expects to support candidates who agree with its vision, by encouraging people to contribute to the candidates’ campaigns or knocking on doors for them, Brocklebank said.

“Does that make us a slate? I don’t know. I guess it’s a definition issue,” he said.

“At this moment, we do not have a giant control room where we are manipulating candidates and we have 23 people all lined up to run in the 23 wards.”

Brocklebank said group members came together last summer, initially to discuss governance, and, buoyed by feeling “ill at ease with the way the city’s going,” have since been meeting in noodle shops, living rooms, bars and classrooms. Our Ottawa has held panel discussions on governance and the city budget.

Some of the group’s efforts are similar to Fair Chance 2010, a new group of experienced community leaders, including former A News anchor Sandra Blaikie and former Ottawa mayor Jacquelin Holzman, who are reaching out to help potential election candidates compete against incumbents.

Brocklebank said his group is mostly made up of “community association types” who don’t necessarily carry the same profile as Fair Chance members, but both groups are interested in trying to make the election meaningful.

Members of Our Ottawa include Shawn Menard, president of the Centretown Citizens Community Association, and Rob Campbell, a trustee with the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. It has a co-ordinating committee and four committees that deal with policy, communications, candidates, and legal/financial areas.

The group says it has been involved in discussions on issues such as a post-secondary student transit pass, governance reform, Lansdowne Park redevelopment, opposing “overdevelopment” of Manotick, and protecting services such as Crime Prevention Ottawa “during council’s frantic budget debates.”

It’s also opposed to any expansion of the city’s suburban boundary. Council is set to revisit later this month a decision made in June to limit growth of the boundary, outside which major development is not supposed to happen.

Developers wanted the boundary to be expanded further, and have filed appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board, which can overturn city planning decisions.

College Councillor Rick Chiarelli has said the city could face a costly legal battle as it tries to defend its decision, and council may want to reconsider. That has raised the potential for more land to be opened up for development.

Our Ottawa says expanding the boundary would contribute to urban sprawl and create problems such as increasing the cost and difficulty of providing services.

The group said in a press release on Tuesday that councillors who vote in favour of expansion “will be specifically targeted in the municipal election this fall.”

waterloowarrior

Mar 2, 2010, 5:30 AM

Councillor Qadri is seeking re-election
http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news/article/625118--councillor-shad-qadri-seeking-re-election

waterloowarrior

Mar 3, 2010, 12:18 AM

Bloess is running again
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Bloess+again+Larter+leaves+mayoral+race/2633671/story.html

Proof Sheet

Mar 3, 2010, 12:25 AM

Bloess is running again
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Bloess+again+Larter+leaves+mayoral+race/2633671/story.html

Innes Councillor Rainer Bloess says there’s “unfinished business” in his ward, which is among the reasons he has decided to run again.

This has got to be one of the most overused rationales in the industry for running again or some sort of sinister mob like mentality to being a Councillor.

The likes of Bloess counteract the Doucet's and Cullen's on this Council.

waterloowarrior

Mar 5, 2010, 5:46 PM

Jan Harder also running again

http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/bulldog/archive/2010/03/05/jan-harder-to-run-again.aspx

waterloowarrior

Mar 5, 2010, 5:49 PM

Doug Thompson also running again
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Osgoode+councillor+plans+fight+hold+ward/2630299/story.html

Running
Running/may for Mayor
May not run
Not running

Mayor Larry O-Brien
Councillor Georges Bédard
Councillor Michel Bellemare
Councillor Rainer Bloess
Councillor Glenn Brooks
Councillor Rick Chiarelli
Councillor Alex Cullen
Councillor Diane Deans
Councillor Steve Desroches
Councillor Clive Doucet
Councillor Eli El-Chantiry
Councillor Peggy Feltmate
Councillor Jan Harder
Councillor Diane Holmes
Councillor Peter Hume
Councillor Gord Hunter
Councillor Rob Jellett
Councillor Christine Leadman
Councillor Jacques Legendre
Councillor Maria McRae
Councillor Bob Monette
Councillor Shad Qadri
Councillor Doug Thompson
Councillor Marianne Wilkinson

waterloowarrior

Mar 17, 2010, 6:09 AM

Councillor Leadman is running again
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/03/16/13252666.html

Dado

Mar 17, 2010, 7:25 PM

:previous:

Her challenger, Katherine Hobbs (http://www.katherinehobbs.ca), isn't doing too well so far...

David Reevely (http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2010/03/17/kitchissippi-council-candidate-amuses.aspx) noted that her website - now that it is up - has a picture of the old Ottawa City Hall, and, elsewhere on her website, on her about (http://www.katherinehobbs.ca/about.php) page, she claims to be on the board of Citizens for Safe Cycling (http://www.safecycling.ca), which she isn't (http://www.safecycling.ca/about-cfsc/board-of-directors).

She also posted a gem on the Westboro Community Association page about the cancellation of the #18 (http://lovewestboro.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/letter-from-a-neighbour-route-18/), laying into Councillor Leadman. She started off with this:

It is both shortsighted and egregious that the portion of Route 18 west of Lebreton was cut, especially in light of Councillor Leadman’s vow to ensure transit improves in the ward.

I don't know how Councillor Leadman voted, though I can guess, and Ms. Hobbs doesn't tell us that but I do know that the existence of the quasi-replacement Route #159 is due to Leadman having promoted the idea.

And she finished off her missive with this:

Let’s hope this extreme effort by the residents of the ward will enable Councillor Leadman to do the job we trusted her to do inititally.

The "extreme effort" being the act of filling out an online petition of the Hintonburg Community Association that sends copies of whatever you write to the HCA and, yes, Councillor Leadman. Not anyone at OC Transpo, no, just the HCA and Councillor Leadman. How it is that Ms. Hobbs thinks that filling Leadman's inbox with petition emails that aren't also heading to OC Transpo is going to enable her to change the minds of the network adjusters at OC Transpo and of her fellow councillors I'm not too sure.

I haven't decided who I'll vote for yet in Kitchissippi, but I've decided who I'm *not* going to vote for.

Luker

Mar 21, 2010, 10:10 PM

The race for mayor is heating up again.
Samuel Wright has entered the race for the big chair, bringing the number of mayoral candidates back up to eight.

www.wrightmanforthejob.ca

Pledge your vote to a good cause!

waterloowarrior

Apr 4, 2010, 12:58 PM

Hume running for his Council seat again... looking more and more like Watson as Mayor
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Hume+seek+election+ward/2761411/story.html

Ottawan

Apr 4, 2010, 2:40 PM

:previous:

That's a real, real shame. I don't think Hume was necessarily perfect for the job, but he was the best of the possible contenders - miles ahead of Watson in my opinion.

Jamaican-Phoenix

Apr 5, 2010, 9:36 PM

:previous:

That's a real, real shame. I don't think Hume was necessarily perfect for the job, but he was the best of the possible contenders - miles ahead of Watson in my opinion.

I agree, but I think this is the smartest move Hume can make on his part. He's probably biding his time and will run for Mayor in the next election. Especially if Watson turns out to be a flop.

Mille Sabords

Apr 6, 2010, 10:13 AM

This must mean that O'Brien will run. Because otherwise, Hume vs Watson would've been no contest. Hume would've won. Cullen was/is the outsider; the "centre" would've been too busy with three candidates and yes Watson, as the blandest, would've cut through the middle.

But as JP said, better to "save" Hume for the next go-round. Especially if another 4 years of O'Brien means that Watson fades to black and is never heard of again (fingers crossed).

lrt's friend

Apr 6, 2010, 12:21 PM

But as JP said, better to "save" Hume for the next go-round. Especially if another 4 years of O'Brien means that Watson fades to black and is never heard of again (fingers crossed).

Heaven help us!!!!!!

Dado

Apr 6, 2010, 3:27 PM

This must mean that O'Brien will run. Because otherwise, Hume vs Watson would've been no contest. Hume would've won.

I'm not so sure.

Several months back I was called by a pollster concerning politics at all three levels in Ottawa. For the municipal poll Hume wasn't even listed as a choice by the pollster - I had to "write him in" as one of my choices (I literally had to ask "can I add someone else to the list?" - I wasn't even offered an "other"). Most of the others being discussed at the time, like O'Brien, Cullen, Watson (who was still being coy at the time), Deans and even Doucet were offered up, but not Hume, which suggests his potential as a candidate hadn't even filtered into the midst of this pollster.

I think it's all too easy for those of us who follow these things closely to attach a higher weight to some candidates based on our knowledge of their performance/suitability/etc. than would the population at large who doesn't follow things nearly as closely. Name recognition seems to count for a lot in municipal politics and Watson has a lot more of that than Hume, who seems to be more about getting stuff done quietly than making lots of noise. Last time around O'Brien had to buy name recognition using his personal fortune and his connections in the business community; Hume has no such resource at his disposal.

Cullen was/is the outsider; the "centre" would've been too busy with three candidates and yes Watson, as the blandest, would've cut through the middle.

I'm not sure which three you're counting in the "centre": Watson, Hume & O'Brien or Cullen, Watson & Hume... because to me only Watson & Hume are centrist; Cullen is former NDP and O'Brien is a [wannabe] Tory.

But as JP said, better to "save" Hume for the next go-round. Especially if another 4 years of O'Brien means that Watson fades to black and is never heard of again (fingers crossed).

Do you really think O'Brien has a realistic shot at this? Cullen is the nominal leftist candidate but he's liked by very few people anywhere on the spectrum, and I'm sure the average left-wing voter would do whatever they can to avoid O'Brien returning, which means voting for Watson. On the right, thinking conservatives don't like people like O'Brien - his idiocy dragged a bunch of senior provincial and federal Tories into a courtroom, after all - so he's not going to find much support or help there. O'Brien is really limited to the Lowell Green constituency. Hume would probably have captured slightly more of O'Brien's support base than can Watson, but Watson is just going to clean up the huge "centrist" vote that votes on name recognition and safe blandness.

And Hume, btw, has done transit no favours by intervening heavily in the Hospital Link corridor study to ensure that the Browning Ave routing option was removed from further study, thereby effectively condemning the entire study as a pointless endeavour (it will propose a stub into the Hospital corridor from the SE Transitway while the route from the east will head through big box and office block sprawl just south of the VIA station, which is already served by rapid transit). Of all the councillors, none has intervened more heavily in transit matters this term than Hume, and certainly none more successfully. Cullen and Hume sure make the interesting contrast in terms of transit through their wards: Cullen would like to see 25 houses knocked down in his ward for a transitway alignment that's worse than the one we've already planned for, while Hume is unwilling to even let a transitway go past the houses on Browning Ave in a wide, easily mitigated hydro corridor connecting the hospitals with Orleans where many of the hospital workers live.

ajldub

Apr 6, 2010, 3:43 PM

The joke's over. Bring back Durrell.

Ottawan

Apr 6, 2010, 11:09 PM

The one good thing with four more years of O'Brien would be that the rapid transit plan goes ahead, as opposed to a groundhog-day-esque 'reset'.

I think the focus needs to be on changing some of the Councillors. We know that Cullen will be out, and Doucet has vacillated on running/quitting. I'm hoping that now that Hume is running for Alta Vista instead of Mayor, Deans may make a run at the mayor's chair, eliminating one more.

Of course, this also presupposes the fact that better candidates need to run as replacements in the ridings without incumbents, let alone the others.

Uhuniau

Apr 7, 2010, 1:31 AM

The one good thing with four more years of O'Brien would be that the rapid transit plan goes ahead, as opposed to a groundhog-day-esque 'reset'.

Even with four years of jellyfish Watson, if he hits the re-set button, there'll be enough NIMBYism and negativity generated that someone else will come along, pledging to hit the same bloody button, and get elected.

Fact it: this pathetic Crapville hates transit, and couldn't build its way from one end of a wet paper bag to the other. Then we have to deal with inteprovincial issues and the bloody NCC. This town is an ungovernable piece of garbage that should just be bulldozed.

Move the capital to some place that works, like Sault Ste. Marie or Churchill.

Down with Ottawa.

Mille Sabords

Apr 7, 2010, 2:06 AM

Mille Sabords

Apr 7, 2010, 2:14 AM

Several months back I was called by a pollster concerning politics at all three levels in Ottawa. For the municipal poll Hume wasn't even listed as a choice by the pollster - I had to "write him in" as one of my choices (I literally had to ask "can I add someone else to the list?" - I wasn't even offered an "other"). Most of the others being discussed at the time, like O'Brien, Cullen, Watson (who was still being coy at the time), Deans and even Doucet were offered up, but not Hume, which suggests his potential as a candidate hadn't even filtered into the midst of this pollster.

I think it's all too easy for those of us who follow these things closely to attach a higher weight to some candidates based on our knowledge of their performance/suitability/etc. than would the population at large who doesn't follow things nearly as closely. Name recognition seems to count for a lot in municipal politics and Watson has a lot more of that than Hume, who seems to be more about getting stuff done quietly than making lots of noise. Last time around O'Brien had to buy name recognition using his personal fortune and his connections in the business community; Hume has no such resource at his disposal.

I'm not sure which three you're counting in the "centre": Watson, Hume & O'Brien or Cullen, Watson & Hume... because to me only Watson & Hume are centrist; Cullen is former NDP and O'Brien is a [wannabe] Tory.

Do you really think O'Brien has a realistic shot at this? Cullen is the nominal leftist candidate but he's liked by very few people anywhere on the spectrum, and I'm sure the average left-wing voter would do whatever they can to avoid O'Brien returning, which means voting for Watson. On the right, thinking conservatives don't like people like O'Brien - his idiocy dragged a bunch of senior provincial and federal Tories into a courtroom, after all - so he's not going to find much support or help there. O'Brien is really limited to the Lowell Green constituency. Hume would probably have captured slightly more of O'Brien's support base than can Watson, but Watson is just going to clean up the huge "centrist" vote that votes on name recognition and safe blandness.

And Hume, btw, has done transit no favours by intervening heavily in the Hospital Link corridor study to ensure that the Browning Ave routing option was removed from further study, thereby effectively condemning the entire study as a pointless endeavour (it will propose a stub into the Hospital corridor from the SE Transitway while the route from the east will head through big box and office block sprawl just south of the VIA station, which is already served by rapid transit). Of all the councillors, none has intervened more heavily in transit matters this term than Hume, and certainly none more successfully. Cullen and Hume sure make the interesting contrast in terms of transit through their wards: Cullen would like to see 25 houses knocked down in his ward for a transitway alignment that's worse than the one we've already planned for, while Hume is unwilling to even let a transitway go past the houses on Browning Ave in a wide, easily mitigated hydro corridor connecting the hospitals with Orleans where many of the hospital workers live.

Interesting analysis, Dado, and in many ways I can see your points. I can also unfortunately see how the scenario you've described plays out to a comma. I guess it will all depend on how each campaign is run and how each will "message" itself.

With Cullen we get the transit plan, but reset on Lansdowne.
With O'Brien we get the transit plan and Lansdowne.
With Watson, we're not sure.

Reset buttons cost money, we ought to know.

Is it possible to run on a city-building platform? Very difficult. City-building implies spending taxpayers' money. So candidates who want to be taken seriously have to play to the lowest common denominator, which gave us "zero means zero" and a reset button last time. Did we save any money?

Is municipal politics condemned to letting big city-building decisions be taken by technical studies and a process of elimination and ultimate jeopardy? Look at Lansdowne: we got here because we dithered until it was time to tear down part of it, lest it fall to pieces. Look at transit: we got here at the price of a maxed-out system that will continue to be strained until we get the LRT built. Years and years of studies which only mean that politicians get behind big projects when doing nothing becomes clearly harmful.

Somewhere, there is a big deficit in ambition, imagination and proactivity.

So let us weep about that, and when we're done weeping, let us vote intelligently and in full knowledge of what we want to see happen.

gjhall

Apr 7, 2010, 2:35 AM

Uhuniau

Apr 7, 2010, 3:03 AM

Whoa! If this place makes you so miserable, maybe you should seek happiness somewhere else.

Working on it. The "reset button" would be a big factor in a final decision to move my business somewhere else.

Uhuniau

Apr 7, 2010, 3:04 AM

We're more into constructive criticism.

I've tried being constructive, and am moving on to pleading, cajoling, and ridicule. Nothing else has worked.

Dado

Apr 7, 2010, 3:51 AM

Even with four years of jellyfish Watson, if he hits the re-set button, there'll be enough NIMBYism and negativity generated that someone else will come along, pledging to hit the same bloody button, and get elected.

Fact it: this pathetic Crapville hates transit, and couldn't build its way from one end of a wet paper bag to the other. Then we have to deal with inteprovincial issues and the bloody NCC. This town is an ungovernable piece of garbage that should just be bulldozed.

Move the capital to some place that works, like Sault Ste. Marie or Churchill.

Down with Ottawa.

And I thought I was bad...

But your post does raise something I have thought about on and off: was Ottawa the right choice for the capital?

On reflection, I don't think it was. Ottawa is too overshadowed by Toronto & Montreal because it's located too close to them (especially Montreal) compared to the size of the country as a whole. For example, and this might sound a bit daft, but sometimes when you watch the TV weather on a national broadcast Ottawa is dropped off the map while Montreal, Toronto and Sudbury are shown. On transportation matters, Ottawa takes second fiddle: freight rail has been all but abandoned here and our airport doesn't exactly have a lot of international flights - because it's too easy to go to Montreal. Locating the capital in Ottawa was selected as a compromise between Upper & Lower Canada and not because it was a good spot for one.

So where would I have put it? Well it would have had to be reasonably accessible in the 1850s when the capital was picked. With hindsight one would also want it somewhere more central to the future (i.e. current) Canada, since it was foreseeable at the time that Canada would eventually span all of British North America. The physical site itself would also want to be somewhat dramatic.

So... North Bay. Except it wouldn't be called 'North Bay' since that name came about as an accident during the building of the CPR. It would have had some other name more befitting a capital. North Bay may not seem all that accessible, but in fact it was by way of the Ottawa and Mattawa Rivers from the east and the French River and Lake Nippissing from the west, water still being the main form of transport in the 1850s. A capital at North Bay would have brought about the early construction of the Georgian Bay and Ottawa River Canal project to link Georgian Bay with the Ottawa River, a project that would likely have gone through without WWI intervening. North Bay would also be the hub of the entire future Canadian railway system, with trains from Toronto & Montreal coming together for the trip westwards. That combined with major port facilities related to being at the high point in the canal system (North Bay is located pretty much on the divide between the Great Lakes and Ottawa River watersheds) and being the future gateway to the mineral extraction industries to the north would have made the capital an important commercial as well as political centre, something that Ottawa isn't. Later, the capital would need an international airport with decent connections to the rest of the world.

As a site, North Bay is overlooked by dramatic hills immediately north of the city while being sandwiched between Lake Nippissing and Trout Lake (which I'm sure would have a different name - like Lake Albert or something). These hills would be a good place to have a lookout from which citizens and visitors would be able to gaze down on their capital. Being on shield and hemmed in geographically, the site would have promoted fairly dense construction, eventually using granite as a construction and paving material; Helsinki perhaps could have been inspiration. Some of the channels and rivulets in and around the city could have become canalized for an Amsterdam-like feeling in places. The location also has a number of hillocks suitable for grand buildings of state.

Politically, this location was, at the time, outside the usual boundaries of Upper & Lower Canada. It would have been possible to create a special province or the like for the capital rather than have it subject to provincial rule from afar. Since it was all Crown Land, planning for the capital would have been much simplified as well.

But the biggest benefits I think would be on the national outlook, and, subsequently, on the outlook of the citizenry of the capital. Ottawa as a location has just reinforced the petty Toronto-vs-Montreal, English-vs-French battles that characterized much of early Canadian history, whereas a location as remote as North Bay would have opened politicians' minds to the potential of the country lying to the west. The petty battles would have seemed just that - small and petty after a trip of several days by water or early railway. The location of the capital would not have been a compromise that was "won" by Ottawa, an existing city; rather the building of the capital in the wilderness would have been an exercise itself in nation building. It would have been the staging point for the building of the transcontinental railway, which likely would have come about much earlier. The capital would have been seen as a place of importance by both its inhabitants and the population as a whole, whereas right now it seems as if Ottawans and their municipal politicians often don't even realize they live in the capital.

... and now back to talking about our current mayoral candidates :D

Mille Sabords

Apr 7, 2010, 11:23 AM

Working on it. The "reset button" would be a big factor in a final decision to move my business somewhere else.

Here's hoping you "reset" yourself quickly, then.

lrt's friend

Apr 7, 2010, 12:43 PM

The one good thing with four more years of O'Brien would be that the rapid transit plan goes ahead, as opposed to a groundhog-day-esque 'reset'.

I don't know about that. We may continue to move forward for the time being but there is a great risk that when it goes to tender, the price tag may go up considerably and then where are we? We might as well hit the reset button since we may have reached a dead end.

Re-election of O'Brien or election of Cullen does not necessarily mean that we will get the LRT shovel in the ground in the next 4 years. This will not be the first time that a major project gets shelved.

RTWAP

Apr 7, 2010, 6:02 PM

I'll have to start drinking heavily if my only choices for an LRT-friendly mayor are Cullen and O'Brien.

I wonder if Hume is just laying low. Running a campaign that competes with Watson may not be feasible, but what if he enters the campaign at the last minute with a more grassroots approach. Don't try to run an expensive professional looking campaign. Just run from the heart and hope to win.

The thing for Hume is, if it's head to head between him and Watson then I think he's got a chance. But if he enters early then O'Brien probably comes in too, and Hume almost certainly loses.

He should file his papers for mayor 5 minutes before the deadline and have a go.

c_speed3108

Apr 7, 2010, 6:08 PM

Uhuniau

Apr 7, 2010, 6:24 PM

I don't know about that. We may continue to move forward for the time being but there is a great risk that when it goes to tender, the price tag may go up considerably and then where are we? We might as well hit the reset button since we may have reached a dead end.

Re-election of O'Brien or election of Cullen does not necessarily mean that we will get the LRT shovel in the ground in the next 4 years. This will not be the first time that a major project gets shelved.

Nor the last. The "reset" button thing is going to repeat for another two or three cycles until Ottawa finally throws in the towel and abandons any pretence of being a real city once and for all.

Useless Watson gets elected in 2010, hits the reset button.

John Baird will hit the reset button again.

Ontario PCs will get elected in 2011, and they'll hit the reset button.

The federal government will change, and they'll hit the reset button.

Watson gets turfed or quits in 2014, and the next council hits the reset button.

It's reset buttons, all the way down. What a town.

Mille Sabords

Apr 7, 2010, 10:31 PM

Nor the last. The "reset" button thing is going to repeat for another two or three cycles until Ottawa finally throws in the towel and abandons any pretence of being a real city once and for all.

Useless Watson gets elected in 2010, hits the reset button.

John Baird will hit the reset button again.

Ontario PCs will get elected in 2011, and they'll hit the reset button.

The federal government will change, and they'll hit the reset button.

Watson gets turfed or quits in 2014, and the next council hits the reset button.

It's reset buttons, all the way down. What a town.

I thought you were moving? :D
Aaaanyway...

The bigger picture here is, there cannot be any reset button and the electorate has to say that. There can't be anymore reset buttons. What's the alternative? We always go back to that, too. The Transitway is maxed out. We NEED more capacity. LRT in a subway is the final destination, no matter how many reset buttons you hit.

Aside from the comedic aspects of the above post, the other key question has to be: who does it profit to hit the reset button? There are only a few cities in Canada where a project of this scope can be undertaken. Such a project represents a major investment, big contracts, lots of jobs (therefore intense lobbying), years of billable hours in other words. Do you think for a minute that the various industry interests who are likely to bid on such a contract would find it remotely funny that it keeps getting cancelled? Do you think for a minute that the last LRT plan was cancelled because "it was too costly"? Give your head a shake. It was cancelled, if anything, because it didn't go "all the way"... in other words, because "it wasn't costly enough" !!!

If you want a career as a stand-up comedian and you want a good set on Ottawa and its reset buttons, then I'll go see you at Yuk Yuk's and I'll laugh my belly off. You have lots of material to work with. But don't kid yourself. This is getting done. No resets.

Resets helps no one. It doesn't help the industry (probably a prime backroom mover and shaker) AND it doesn't help the electorate, who is getting increasingly frustrated with Ottawa's transportation problems. This just happens to be a confluence of interests that will make this a natural. The usual suspects will huff and puff about the money. There will be the usual oh-so-Ottawa self-effacing modesty about whether we "deserve" a subway and whether the voters of PEI would agree. I don't give a fuck about the voters of PEI and what they think of my city's subway, unless we also ask them what they think of every other major transit plan the feds throw money into from coast to coast.

Dado

Apr 8, 2010, 12:00 AM

Mille Sabords

Apr 8, 2010, 12:38 AM

Personally, I think the talk of "reset" buttons is bit overheated.

I agree with you there.

The only issue is really the tunnel downtown. That would likely be the only thing to be "reset" and given the timeline of tunnel construction we could have an operational at-grade system long before a tunnel gets built anyway. We could even do a planning and EA study on a surface option all the while that engineering design work goes ahead for the tunnel, because it's not like it's going to be done quickly. That allows a decision to be taken on either course of action once the designs are complete for both without slowing anything down.

And what if this "reset" led to an earlier completion of the Tunney's Pasture-Baseline portion of the system using the savings from the tunnel?

And I disagree with you there. The tunnel downtown is not controversial, other than for the few in this "municipal bubble" who think they know better or insist on being relevant by being contrarian. Sooner or later, there will be a tunnel. Making a controversy out of such a basic thing is intellectual masturbation and technical dishonesty.

Most people, regular people, WANT the tunnel. They think it can't come a minute too soon. Just get it built!

The timeline of the tunnel construction is 6-7 years. We can spend over half that amount of time jerking ourselves off on sterile surface vs underground debates, or we can just get on with it.

Uhuniau

Apr 8, 2010, 1:46 AM

I thought you were moving?

Working on it...

The bigger picture here is, there cannot be any reset button and the electorate has to say that.

The electorate, the morons, will say the exact opposite. Repeatedly. Exhibit A: LARRY O'BRIEN GOT ELECTED.

There can't be anymore reset buttons. What's the alternative? We always go back to that, too. The Transitway is maxed out. We NEED more capacity. LRT in a subway is the final destination, no matter how many reset buttons you hit.

I know that. You know that. That's two of us. There are a lot of (a) stupid people in this town, and (b) people who can't give a rat's ass about transit in the first place, and they voter in larger proportions than in any of the other 10 largest cities in Canada.

Such a project represents a major investment, big contracts, lots of jobs (therefore intense lobbying), years of billable hours in other words. Do you think for a minute that the various industry interests who are likely to bid on such a contract would find it remotely funny that it keeps getting cancelled?

Sadly, in Ottawa the planning, consulting, lobbying and NIMBYing industries are, each, much larger economically than the actual building stuff industry. The people who prolong the problem have more influence than anyone who might turn a buck implementing the solution.

Do you think for a minute that the last LRT plan was cancelled because "it was too costly"?

From the perspective of the home-owning and car-driving voters who are the bedrock of the electorate outside about three wards, that is EXACTLY what happened.

But don't kid yourself. This is getting done. No resets.

Then you don't understand the personal politics of this city, especially the childish feud between provincial Liberals and Tories which has infected the elected politics one level up (federal) and one level down (municipal).

Resets helps no one.

I know that. You know that.

It doesn't help the industry (probably a prime backroom mover and shaker)

Transit is not a major industry in Ottawa, unlike Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver. Hell, even the ATU membership, who — at least the share who actually live in Ottawa — are anti-LRT, so they can't be counted on to vote and politic as a bloc.

AND it doesn't help the electorate, who is getting increasingly frustrated with Ottawa's transportation problems.

For "transportation problems" read "car problems": the electorate who actually vote are overwhelmingly home-owning drivers, not renters or non-drivers, who need to start showing up at the municipal ballot box.

This just happens to be a confluence of interests that will make this a natural.

I don't see any confluence of interests. In fact, I see a divergence; Ontario gave Ottawa the shaft in its piddly $600-million-and-don't-ask-for-any-more pledge; the feds are still not on board; the NCC is being obstrucionist, as usual in all matters transit.

unless we also ask them what they think of every other major transit plan the feds throw money into from coast to coast.

Indeed, and the good burghers of Ottawa, with their federal and provincial taxpayer hats on, have already given tens of millions in funding for the Canada Line in Vancouver, the Montreal Metro, major transit projects in Toronto and the GTA, and then get shafted even by our own locally-elected federal and provincial members.

And then we re-elect them.

If they don't care about transit in their own city, and if there are no consequences for their ineptitude — Watson, Meilleur, Baird, Poilièvre, all got re-elected — why should MPPs or MPs from elsewhere in the province or country?

lrt's friend

Apr 8, 2010, 2:59 AM

Personally, I think the talk of "reset" buttons is bit overheated.

The only issue is really the tunnel downtown. That would likely be the only thing to be "reset" and given the timeline of tunnel construction we could have an operational at-grade system long before a tunnel gets built anyway. We could even do a planning and EA study on a surface option all the while that engineering design work goes ahead for the tunnel, because it's not like it's going to be done quickly. That allows a decision to be taken on either course of action once the designs are complete for both without slowing anything down.

And what if this "reset" led to an earlier completion of the Tunney's Pasture-Baseline portion of the system using the savings from the tunnel?

I think there is a lot of wisdom in what you are saying. I have felt for a while that we must bring the tunnel engineering to a completion so that this project is ready to go when we can fund it and when it makes sense. No more silly reset buttons!

I will go back to what I have said for years, that in the long-run, we need both a surface and tunnel route for rapid transit. This is how we gain a true large increase in downtown capacity and is needed if we want to connect both sides of the river. In this respect, a surface route may only provide a temporary solution to our downtown problems, but it is part of the long-term solution.

I am truly concerned that this 'tunnel or nothing' approach may not lead us anywhere, at least not for a long time. I am also concerned that the current approach is closing off surface transit access to downtown except by congested streets. In other words, in our rush to move forward with the tunnel first, we are closing other options permanently.

As it stands, O'Brien and Cullen are not really LRT boosters. Their interest is in the tunnel and if it doesn't reach the citizens of Ottawa beyond a starter system, that will be left to those who follow to build, if ever. We know that Watson has not been keen on the tunnel but I believe that he has enough political acumen to not use such terms as 'reset button'. We will see what his position is, but I expect that he will attempt to get things moving based on the funding available. He would be wise not to cancel anything but try to gather support around a plan that can be built faster. This may involve taking parts of various plans that have already advanced substantially through the engineering stage and then patch it together.

As it stands, with O'Brien's and Cullen's leadership for the past 4 years, LRT has completely fallen off the radar with most taxpayers. Most no longer care or don't expect anything to come of it.

Uhuniau

Apr 8, 2010, 4:09 AM

Watson has not been keen on the tunnel but I believe that he has enough political acumen to not use such terms as 'reset button'.

He's come perilously close.

We will see what his position is

Before or after the election?

but I expect that he will attempt to get things moving based on the funding available.

He's already said as much; how could he say otherwise? He was in an Ontario provincial government that offered Ottawa a measly $600-million with the caveat to never ask for any more.

As it stands, with O'Brien's and Cullen's leadership for the past 4 years, LRT has completely fallen off the radar with most taxpayers. Most no longer care or don't expect anything to come of it.

And those taxpayers who don't care about LRT, or any kind of T, are going to vote for Watson in droves. Watson himself doesn't care about transit, and from what I can gather is quite happy to have Ottawa be Canada's largest bus-only system (O-train excepted) forever.

He could prove me wrong, but that would mean he'd have to take a stance on something.

lrt's friend

Apr 8, 2010, 1:32 PM

You would think that Watson has something in mind for LRT, when $600M of funding was offered before he threw his hat in the ring for mayor. We all know that the timing was deliberate. One thing we know, if Watson is elected as mayor, Cullen and O'Brien are gone. With that, the leadership behind the tunnel idea is gone and there is a good chance that we will be heading in a different direction or at least a different set of priorities.

You may be right that this may lead us nowhere, but that big funding carrot and a more cooperative atmosphere at city council may get things moving again.

I would say if you support the current tunnel concept as a first priority, you should vote for Cullen or O'Brien.

Uhuniau

Apr 8, 2010, 3:27 PM

You would think that Watson has something in mind for LRT, when $600M of funding was offered before he threw his hat in the ring for mayor.

Or, true to form for a Queen's Park type, he could blow it all on more friggin' busways.

We all know that the timing was deliberate. One thing we know, if Watson is elected as mayor, Cullen and O'Brien are gone. With that, the leadership behind the tunnel idea is gone and there is a good chance that we will be heading in a different direction or at least a different set of priorities.

The "reset button" in other words: different directions, or different sets of priorities, mean different funding planning, different routing, different engineering, different design, different environmental work, different community consultation, and a different three or four years wasted re-inventing the wheel, before unveiling yet another plan which will fall victim to another, somewhat different, but mostly the same set of blockage from another, somewhat differnt, but mostly the same set of crusading columnists and radio hosts, NIMBY groups, politicians who don't like the politicians who are championing the latest pet project, and NCC.

You may be right that this may lead us nowhere, but that big funding carrot

What big funding carrot?

and a more cooperative atmosphere at city council may get things moving again.

There has to be a co-operative atmosphere at city council. I can pretty well guarantee, the next one is going to be even worse than this one. For once, there were at least some suburban councillors willing to forego quick links to their own wards. That will NEVER be the case again. They want it all, now, and cheap.

I would say if you support the current tunnel concept as a first priority, you should vote for Cullen or O'Brien.

That is my plan, unless and until Watson unveils his "Super Magic Plan To Build Mass Transit To Every Suburb In Five Years For Less Than Two Billion Dollars With Absolutely No Overruns While Solving The Downtown Bottleneck And Without Asking Dalton McGuinty For One Dime More Than The Six Hundred Measly Million That They Offered To Ontario's Second Largest CMA And The Capital Of Canada Even While Pledging Eleven Billion To Toronto."

I'm not holding my breath.

RTWAP

Apr 8, 2010, 3:47 PM

The only issue is really the tunnel downtown. That would likely be the only thing to be "reset" and given the timeline of tunnel construction we could have an operational at-grade system long before a tunnel gets built anyway. We could even do a planning and EA study on a surface option all the while that engineering design work goes ahead for the tunnel, because it's not like it's going to be done quickly. That allows a decision to be taken on either course of action once the designs are complete for both without slowing anything down.

And what if this "reset" led to an earlier completion of the Tunney's Pasture-Baseline portion of the system using the savings from the tunnel?

But the rest of the system is affected by the decisions made about the DT portion. If it's a tunnel then it's segregated from traffic, can handle higher frequency, can handle automated operation, can handle merging multiple lines into a single DT segment.

All the decisions about this transit stuff are like a house of cards. It's very hard to just pull one out. And going through the disruption of creating surface routes and stations, only to close them down 3 or 4 years later would be very costly.

My priority is getting a viable core network built as quickly as possible, and getting it built in a way that supports quick expansion. Building it with the intention of rebuilding it in 10 years is not something I want to see.

I'd rather see nothing built than see them waste money on a system that will fail, and then push back the possibility of a good LRT system for another 30-40 years.

EDIT: I should add that I do want to see surface rail, but as streetcars that run in at grade, and separated where space permits (e.g. Carling).

Dado

Apr 8, 2010, 5:01 PM

:previous:

The way out is to simply make it clear that surface is the starting point to get the ball rolling while still planning for the tunnel and making preparations for it. If you put the line on Albert, we make sure we put in some pedestrian underpasses, portals in the platforms and the like when building the surface line for the future subway stations to tie into. I certainly would not advocate building a surface line as the be-all and end-all without regard to building in provisions for a future tunnel because that would be just as daft as building busways without first figuring out how you're going to convert them to rail. That way there won't be anything like the surface disruptions when the tunnel is built. When someone redevelops a site along the route, we take the opportunity to build a station or part of the tunnel so that the tunnel can be built bit-by-bit as part of long-term plan. Once a tunnel is built, the surface line is still available to serve the Carling line and/or the line from Gatineau.

eternallyme

Apr 8, 2010, 5:27 PM

Better yet, get transit planning OUT of City Hall and into a metropolitan transit authority dedicated solely to the transit system, which would be a mixture of appointments from Ottawa, Gatineau, the provincial governments and other municipalities.

lrt's friend

Apr 8, 2010, 5:56 PM

The "reset button" in other words: different directions, or different sets of priorities, mean different funding planning, different routing, different engineering, different design, different environmental work, different community consultation, and a different three or four years wasted re-inventing the wheel, before unveiling yet another plan which will fall victim to another, somewhat different, but mostly the same set of blockage from another, somewhat differnt, but mostly the same set of crusading columnists and radio hosts, NIMBY groups, politicians who don't like the politicians who are championing the latest pet project, and NCC.

We don't press any reset buttons. You complete the engineering on the tunnel and the eastern route. You already have engineering on a north-south route including a downtown surface option. You connect the two together with an improved surface route downtown and you have 40km of track probably within budget. You also have the tunnel ready for construction. We are not going backwards or pressing a reset button by approaching it in this manner. We are always moving forward.

All the decisions about this transit stuff are like a house of cards. It's very hard to just pull one out. And going through the disruption of creating surface routes and stations, only to close them down 3 or 4 years later would be very costly.

Why would we close the surface stations? When Calgary finally builds its tunnel, they have no intention of closing its downtown surface route. Ottawa too will have more than one route if we can finally start moving. If we have two routes. One uses the tunnel. The other uses the surface route. This all becomes very beneficial down the road, when we want to build branches to Gatineau, to the Airport, to South Orleans and to Kanata.

My priority is getting a viable core network built as quickly as possible, and getting it built in a way that supports quick expansion. Building it with the intention of rebuilding it in 10 years is not something I want to see.

This is whole the problem. We are not building a core network quickly, and a tunnel going overbudget means that there will not be any quick expansion. As it stands, we are already delaying LRT implementation by 10 years at best. Is this what you call quick? Compare Edmonton and Calgary. Which expanded quickly and which built the 'core network' (tunnel) first? Which ended up being more successful?

I'd rather see nothing built than see them waste money on a system that will fail, and then push back the possibility of a good LRT system for another 30-40 years.

This is what I have been talking about. Tunnel or nothing. We are building an overall transit network. If we can't afford a tunnel with the available funding, we need to do the best we can with that money. We can't afford to just throw $600M of provincial funding back. Each time we do that, we end up losing.

Mille Sabords

Apr 8, 2010, 11:23 PM

The electorate, the morons, will say the exact opposite. Repeatedly. Exhibit A: LARRY O'BRIEN GOT ELECTED.

And we could say the same for Toronto and Mel Lastman...

I know that. You know that. That's two of us. There are a lot of (a) stupid people in this town, and (b) people who can't give a rat's ass about transit in the first place, and they voter in larger proportions than in any of the other 10 largest cities in Canada.

Sadly, in Ottawa the planning, consulting, lobbying and NIMBYing industries are, each, much larger economically than the actual building stuff industry. The people who prolong the problem have more influence than anyone who might turn a buck implementing the solution.

Sadly, you're right, but I'll interpret the same thing you said a bit differently: Ottawa has a lot of highly educated people employed in mind-numbing, creation-killing jobs with the federal government, with a latent desire to be heard and to have a real role in decision-making, which they apply to their neighbourhoods. It is a shame that so much grey matter ends up being at the service of such pent-up frustration. But I do have faith that such a context is transitional and bound to end up on the positive side of things. There is only so far you can go with NO. Sooner or later, intelligent minds demand the WHAT rather than the NO.

From the perspective of the home-owning and car-driving voters who are the bedrock of the electorate outside about three wards, that is EXACTLY what happened.

Every major city has its driving masses. They are the majority in every major city! Nothing different here.

Then you don't understand the personal politics of this city, especially the childish feud between provincial Liberals and Tories which has infected the elected politics one level up (federal) and one level down (municipal).

Transit is not a major industry in Ottawa, unlike Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver. Hell, even the ATU membership, who — at least the share who actually live in Ottawa — are anti-LRT, so they can't be counted on to vote and politic as a bloc.

For "transportation problems" read "car problems": the electorate who actually vote are overwhelmingly home-owning drivers, not renters or non-drivers, who need to start showing up at the municipal ballot box.

I don't see any confluence of interests. In fact, I see a divergence; Ontario gave Ottawa the shaft in its piddly $600-million-and-don't-ask-for-any-more pledge; the feds are still not on board; the NCC is being obstrucionist, as usual in all matters transit.

The thing with the driving masses is that they want everyone else to get the fuck off the road so that they can drive in peace. And in every case, it will never work. Every major city goes through this. We are getting to the point where congestion is beyond annoying. I say congestion is our friend. The more congestion there is, the more self-selection there will be of people toward rapid transit, and that's where the LRT comes in.

Indeed, and the good burghers of Ottawa, with their federal and provincial taxpayer hats on, have already given tens of millions in funding for the Canada Line in Vancouver, the Montreal Metro, major transit projects in Toronto and the GTA, and then get shafted even by our own locally-elected federal and provincial members.

And then we re-elect them.

If they don't care about transit in their own city, and if there are no consequences for their ineptitude — Watson, Meilleur, Baird, Poilièvre, all got re-elected — why should MPPs or MPs from elsewhere in the province or country?

On this, I'm with you 100%. In fact, it's nice to meet you over this forum. Instead of skipping town, why don't you run for office?

Uhuniau

Apr 9, 2010, 4:02 AM

We don't press any reset buttons. You complete the engineering on the tunnel and the eastern route. You already have engineering on a north-south route including a downtown surface option. You connect the two together with an improved surface route downtown and you have 40km of track probably within budget. You also have the tunnel ready for construction. We are not going backwards or pressing a reset button by approaching it in this manner. We are always moving forward.

What you are describing is the reset button, given the political reality that this will span (A) at least one municipal, provincial, and federal electoral cycle, and (B) is happening at the worst possible time as public sector spending contracts.

Reset buttons all around.
Compare Edmonton and Calgary. Which expanded quickly and which built the 'core network' (tunnel) first? Which ended up being more successful?

In a lot of respects, Calgary is a failure. There is virtually no TOD that I could find, which is what happens when you choose the cheap and easy RoW, mainly running in or along side highways (which is also what happened with the Transitway and is happening in part with the existing LRT plan, such as it is.)

The only thing that the C-Train does do really right is provide a backbone to the system, which we could already have with the buses, if the political will were there to just kill the bloody express routes already and make the Transitway all-backbone, nothing but 90-somethings and 100-somethings plus a few other main lines like the 80s and the 8.

This is what I have been talking about. Tunnel or nothing. We are building an overall transit network. If we can't afford a tunnel with the available funding, we need to do the best we can with that money. We can't afford to just throw $600M of provincial funding back. Each time we do that, we end up losing.

Each time? It's the first, and according to McDingbat, the ONLY rail transit funding Ottawa will ever receive.

Uhuniau

Apr 9, 2010, 4:08 AM

There is only so far you can go with NO. Sooner or later, intelligent minds demand the WHAT rather than the NO.

A sixty-year (and counting) track-record of the NCC, intramural gridlock, and anti-city pathology in Ottawa very strongly suggests otherwise.
Every major city has its driving masses. They are the majority in every major city! Nothing different here.
Much different, at least compared to the next cohort up of city politics (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). Our politics is much more like Edmonton or Winnipeg.
The thing with the driving masses is that they want everyone else to get the fuck off the road so that they can drive in peace.
Yes, exactly like how "traffic" is what happens when OTHER PEOPLE drive! ("Oh, we can't have THAT built in our sacred neighbourhood. Think of the TRAFFIC!")

And in every case, it will never work. Every major city goes through this. We are getting to the point where congestion is beyond annoying. I say congestion is our friend. The more congestion there is, the more self-selection there will be of people toward rapid transit, and that's where the LRT comes in.

I'm a fan of congestion, myself.
On this, I'm with you 100%. In fact, it's nice to meet you over this forum. Instead of skipping town, why don't you run for office?

If I knew a hundred million languages, I'd post the word NO in every one of them right now!

RTWAP

Apr 9, 2010, 5:09 AM

This is what I have been talking about. Tunnel or nothing. We are building an overall transit network. If we can't afford a tunnel with the available funding, we need to do the best we can with that money. We can't afford to just throw $600M of provincial funding back. Each time we do that, we end up losing.

My goal isn't a tunnel, it's a transit plan that provides more service, attracts more riders, and costs less to run.

My goal also isn't to spend $600M of provincial funding. That's an input into the decision making, not an output.

If there's a viable plan that doesn't include a tunnel then great. I haven't seen a proposal for downtown rail surface rail that makes sense based on the transit volumes we're expected to have in 10-15 years.

I can imagine the outlines of a surface plan that might work. Build a 2 or 3 car surface rail section through downtown, connecting with the LRT transitway near Lees, and west along Carling to Lincoln Fields. And then convert to the higher capacity segregated core component (including tunnel). This allows you to divert a substantial portion of the existing BRT users to LRT, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in bus rerouting costs. I'd rather see those dollars sunk into a long-term secondary LRT along Carling than into widening Albert/Scott street and buying more buses.

I don't think council really understands how disruptive it is going to be to close the core of the BRT for years.

lrt's friend

Apr 9, 2010, 1:26 PM

What you are describing is the reset button, given the political reality that this will span (A) at least one municipal, provincial, and federal electoral cycle, and (B) is happening at the worst possible time as public sector spending contracts.

Reset buttons all around.

Why is this the reset button? We had engineering done from Ottawa U to Barrhaven. We will have engineering from Lees Station to Blair soon. We only have to connect that short distance between together by a surface option. If we really want to get moving we can do it.

In a lot of respects, Calgary is a failure. There is virtually no TOD that I could find, which is what happens when you choose the cheap and easy RoW, mainly running in or along side highways (which is also what happened with the Transitway and is happening in part with the existing LRT plan, such as it is.)

This is a very sad statement. You expect a 'perfect' system which is not achievable. Success must be measured mainly in movement of people. Calgary's LRT system is the most successful in North America in that regard. To expect big time TOD, you are talking about subways under arterial streets. In a mid-sized city, this is simply not affordable. Surface LRT will be too slow along arterial streets to move people in from the suburbs. The other choice is what Calgary has done. This provides an excellent example of what Ottawa can do, yet we continue to prefer the less successful example in Edmonton, and believe me, with the funding that is coming, we will have the same outcome. It will be 2030, 2040 or 2050 before we can put together more money to build extensions west or south or to Orleans.

The only thing that the C-Train does do really right is provide a backbone to the system, which we could already have with the buses, if the political will were there to just kill the bloody express routes already and make the Transitway all-backbone, nothing but 90-somethings and 100-somethings plus a few other main lines like the 80s and the 8.

There are benefits of the Transitway over LRT, and that is its flexibility. Why would you want to eliminate that? This is a reason why Ottawa has higher per capita transit useage compared to Calgary. I would be very careful before advocating this approach. I am still waiting for statistics proving that cancelled express routes have resulted in higher ridership. This has been done strictly to address operational problems downtown. It is also being done because we are now putting all our eggs in the tunnel basket and therefore not investing in other possible improvements downtown.

Each time? It's the first, and according to McDingbat, the ONLY rail transit funding Ottawa will ever receive.

He actually said for the next 10 years. I remind you that we had $400M in funding in 2006, $200M from the province and $200M from the feds. We decided not to accept that money. You are kidding yourself if you think that money wasn't used somewhere else. I fully expect if we had proceeded in 2006 and spent that money, while at the same time moved ahead with a more ambitious East-West plan with or without a tunnel, we would have still received $600M over the next 10 years on top of the original money. The point I am making, when you have the money offered, you build something. The more we push things back as we have been doing for last 4 years, the more the funding simply gets recycled, and the less real new money is offered. What is now very important is that we have a practical plan that uses the $600M that is now on offer and that actually accomplishes something, that will improve transit in this city.

Uhuniau

Apr 9, 2010, 2:58 PM

Why is this the reset button? We had engineering done from Ottawa U to Barrhaven. We will have engineering from Lees Station to Blair soon. We only have to connect that short distance between together by a surface option. If we really want to get moving we can do it.

It's a "reset" button because it involves going back to the engineering, financial, and political drawing board for an entire electoral cycle.

This is a very sad statement. You expect a 'perfect' system

I do?

To expect big time TOD, you are talking about subways under arterial streets.

Not at all. Big-time TOD could be achieved in Ottawa by incremental and truly transit-oriented changes to land use at or near several key stations. (And not just "car-oriented developments that just happen to be near transit facilities but basically ignore them". That means you, South Keys.)

The obvious one, of course, is Lebreton, whose potential has been seriously watered down by the NCC's fetish for green space, open space, and views. What little development is left is ghastly, unfortunately, with too-generous setbacks and no real mix of uses.

Tunney's has major redevelopment potential, if the feds will give up on that Greberesque prospect down that centre lane. The view of 1960s brutalist architecture is not worth the waste of perfectly good land.

Speaking of wastes of land: Lincoln Fields. Of course, the blessèd "green space" around that overbuilt piece of crap is a sacred cow... but hand me the knife, and I'd slit its throat without a moment's hesitation.

Hurdman; a bit further down the road, with the environmental remediation that needs to happen, but it should happen.

Baseline: again some major opportunities are being blown. The city archives project, in particular, perpetuates suburban styles, not the truly transit-oriented project it could have been.

There are also some big private- or semi-private landholdings near exising or future re-purposed transit stations (Cyrville, Blair, South Keys, Billings) that should be encouraged through regulatory carrots to be more intensely redeveloped in a truly TOD fashion.

The other choice is what Calgary has done.

We've already done it; run our transit system through the physically, financially, and politically most expedient rights of way... and then failed to bring the city to the transit, not that it's easy to do that when the system is bus-based in the first place.

This provides an excellent example of what Ottawa can do,

The only object lesson to draw from Calgary is to go to a trunk-line system, which we could do tomorrow by throwing the suburban express routes under the metaphorical bus. They are the elephant in the room. Or in the middle of Albert and Slater as the case may be.

There are benefits of the Transitway over LRT, and that is its flexibility. Why would you want to eliminate that?

Because that "flexibility", with the sense of one-ass one-seat suburban entitlement it has engendered, has clogged the system, at least at peak periods, from day one. The last thing you want, if you want land owners and land users to make permanent, city-changing decisions based on the configuration of transit, is "flexibility".

It is also being done because we are now putting all our eggs in the tunnel basket and therefore not investing in other possible improvements downtown.

The only possible improvement downtown that will actually work, is one which involves eliminating this idiotic practice of people scurrying up and down the sidewalks to catch "their" bus.

Every bus (within a few small limits) on the Transitway should be "your" bus. In Calgary, do "you" have "your" C-Train? No, you do not.

He actually said for the next 10 years.

Not according to what I saw quoted in the papers; do you have the "next ten years" quote?

We decided not to accept that money.

Yes, because someone pushed the magic reset button.

I fully expect if we had proceeded in 2006 and spent that money, while at the same time moved ahead with a more ambitious East-West plan with or without a tunnel, we would have still received $600M over the next 10 years on top of the original money.

I do too. Just so we're on the same page here, I supported the 2006 plan.

But I'd still really like to see the dirty details of Watson's Magic Surface LRT to Everywhere in Five Years for $1.8-Billion! plan...

Dado

Apr 9, 2010, 4:13 PM

Why is this the reset button? We had engineering done from Ottawa U to Barrhaven. We will have engineering from Lees Station to Blair soon. We only have to connect that short distance between together by a surface option. If we really want to get moving we can do it.

Unfortunately the downtown engineering on the surface would have to be redone for anything more than 2-car trains and 2-car trains really don't have the capacity we're looking for (we'd have to be pushing one through every 100 seconds or every second light cycle just for current rider volumes). This was part of the problem with the N-S LRT in the first place: it was premised on serving only the line to Barrhaven and not dealing with the capacity issue downtown. The City and the consultants really messed up badly by not listening to anyone else. Official objections like "it would cost $40M more" to extend to Hurdman ring rather hollow now.

This is a very sad statement. You expect a 'perfect' system which is not achievable. Success must be measured mainly in movement of people. Calgary's LRT system is the most successful in North America in that regard. To expect big time TOD, you are talking about subways under arterial streets. In a mid-sized city, this is simply not affordable. Surface LRT will be too slow along arterial streets to move people in from the suburbs. The other choice is what Calgary has done. This provides an excellent example of what Ottawa can do, yet we continue to prefer the less successful example in Edmonton, and believe me, with the funding that is coming, we will have the same outcome. It will be 2030, 2040 or 2050 before we can put together more money to build extensions west or south or to Orleans.

I would further add that the claim by Uhunian that Calgary's LRT "mainly run[s] in or along side highways" is not true. That's only true of the Northwest line northwest of Banff Trail where it runs in the median of Crowchild Trail, an expressway. The rest of that line further south runs through more urban and suburban locales away from big roads and in fact has led to TOD, particularly at Lion's Park. The Northeast line runs along the Bow River and Memorial Drive until striking north in the median of 36th, a major suburban arterial. On the Memorial section is an infill project known as "The Bridges", which is by any measure quite a success. The remaining leg of the current network, the South line, first runs alongside MacLeod Trail to clear the Stampede grounds and a major cemetery before running in a railway right-of-way (albeit one roughly parallel to MacLeod Trail, or rather vice versa) all the rest of the way south. This passes through industrial areas, commercial areas and past suburban residential. As time went on Calgary has started to plan higher density development near the stations. A couple of stations, most notably Heritage, have seen condominium infill go up around them - and unlike here in Ottawa they actually advertise proximity to LRT.

I'm sure with hindsight Calgary's LRT planners would have done some things differently, but as the first large-scale LRT system in a North American city with a love of the car, it's hard to call it anything but a major success. It has certainly proved the wisdom of breadth of network over building a tunnel.

One more line is under construction, the West LRT, and it will be supported by land use planning around a few stations where opportunities present themselves for intensification.

There are benefits of the Transitway over LRT, and that is its flexibility. Why would you want to eliminate that? This is a reason why Ottawa has higher per capita transit useage compared to Calgary.

Afraid not - this is a modern myth promoted heavily by OC Transpo and BRT apologists with no bearing in reality. The Transitway has not increased ridership in Ottawa (on a per capita basis) one iota over what it was before the Transitway commenced construction. Our higher per capita transit usage than Calgary is simply a result of always having had a higher per capita transit usage but this fact has been distorted in the last quarter century to imply that the Transitway is responsible. The best that can be said about the Transitway is that per capita ridership would have fallen faster without it than it did with it. That's the only claim that can be made based on the data, because even today we're still well below on per capita measures compared to where we started in the early 80s. Contrast that with Calgary where they are catching up to our enormous early lead - and really watch out when the West LRT comes online as well as the lengthening of the trains to 4 cars from 3.

Calgary's downtown 7th Ave, btw, handles more people today in the peak direction (which would be from east to west in the morning and west to east in the afternoon) than do Ottawa's downtown bus lanes - and that's using 3-car/75 m trains. In absolute ridership, they passed us in 2007 or 2008.

lrt's friend

Apr 9, 2010, 5:38 PM

Afraid not - this is a modern myth promoted heavily by OC Transpo and BRT apologists with no bearing in reality. The Transitway has not increased ridership in Ottawa (on a per capita basis) one iota over what it was before the Transitway commenced construction. Our higher per capita transit usage than Calgary is simply a result of always having had a higher per capita transit usage but this fact has been distorted in the last quarter century to imply that the Transitway is responsible. The best that can be said about the Transitway is that per capita ridership would have fallen faster without it than it did with it. That's the only claim that can be made based on the data, because even today we're still well below on per capita measures compared to where we started in the early 80s. Contrast that with Calgary where they are catching up to our enormous early lead - and really watch out when the West LRT comes online as well as the lengthening of the trains to 4 cars from 3.

Calgary's downtown 7th Ave, btw, handles more people today in the peak direction (which would be from east to west in the morning and west to east in the afternoon) than do Ottawa's downtown bus lanes - and that's using 3-car/75 m trains. In absolute ridership, they passed us in 2007 or 2008.

I don't disagree with you, but the trend since the 1970s has been to lower ridership in most cities and this has only turned around in the last 10 years. Part of the success in Calgary can also be attributed to planning the city with LRT in mind. Concentrating employment downtown and making parking expensive and scarce. It also didn't help our ridership figures when we had an O'Brien inspired 53 day transit strike.

Unfortunately the downtown engineering on the surface would have to be redone for anything more than 2-car trains and 2-car trains really don't have the capacity we're looking for (we'd have to be pushing one through every 100 seconds or every second light cycle just for current rider volumes). This was part of the problem with the N-S LRT in the first place: it was premised on serving only the line to Barrhaven and not dealing with the capacity issue downtown. The City and the consultants really messed up badly by not listening to anyone else. Official objections like "it would cost $40M more" to extend to Hurdman ring rather hollow now.

You are no doubt correct however, if we really wanted to get moving on this, it can be done, without having to wait 10 years.

I know the issue that you mention about the 2006 plan, however, where was the money going to come from to build further extensions to Hurdman and remove most of the buses from downtown? There was a budget to follow and even as it was, it was going well over that. At some point, you can't keep adding more and more, at least as part of the first phase.

lrt's friend

Apr 9, 2010, 5:55 PM

We've already done it; run our transit system through the physically, financially, and politically most expedient rights of way... and then failed to bring the city to the transit, not that it's easy to do that when the system is bus-based in the first place.

How is a rail based system any easier to place? Basically, unless you are going to bury it or run it along an arterial street, people don't want rail lines close by either.

Because that "flexibility", with the sense of one-ass one-seat suburban entitlement it has engendered, has clogged the system, at least at peak periods, from day one. The last thing you want, if you want land owners and land users to make permanent, city-changing decisions based on the configuration of transit, is "flexibility".

Why don't you just say it? Suburban people should not come downtown for any reason. The LRT plan as it stands does not even have any Park n Ride lots. There is little incentive to use such a system except in peak hours, because the transit connections are lousy and as we have seen from the bus network revision proposals, will get worse once LRT is implemented. The suburban transfer stations can also be intimidating for large portions of the population especially in the evening. I also wish to point out that the Transitway 'flexibility' also facilitates cross-town bus routes to speed up. When the Transitways convert to LRT, cross-town buses will return to slow, congested arterial roads for their full distance. Why is it that everything continues to focus on downtown?

waterloowarrior

Apr 16, 2010, 11:53 PM

Councillor Wilkinson is running again

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/04/16/13611061.html

Running (12)
Running/may for Mayor (3)
May not run (2)
Not running (2)
Unknown (5)

Mayor Larry O-Brien
Councillor Georges Bédard
Councillor Michel Bellemare
Councillor Rainer Bloess
Councillor Glenn Brooks
Councillor Rick Chiarelli
Councillor Alex Cullen
Councillor Diane Deans
Councillor Steve Desroches
Councillor Clive Doucet
Councillor Eli El-Chantiry
Councillor Peggy Feltmate
Councillor Jan Harder
Councillor Diane Holmes
Councillor Peter Hume
Councillor Gord Hunter
Councillor Rob Jellett
Councillor Christine Leadman
Councillor Jacques Legendre
Councillor Maria McRae
Councillor Bob Monette
Councillor Shad Qadri
Councillor Doug Thompson
Councillor Marianne Wilkinson

Proof Sheet

Apr 17, 2010, 2:02 AM

Councillor Wilkinson is running again
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/04/16/13611061.html

Hmm, let me guess..she's running as she has unfinished business in her ward.

Cre47

May 4, 2010, 9:33 PM

Anyone read about Sue Sherring's column mentioning Deans is not running for mayor but will run in Gloucester-Southgate

Here's the piece at http://www.ottawasun.com/news/columnists/susan_sherring/2010/05/03/13813481.html

Diane Deans won't run for mayor

By Susan Sherring, City Hall Bureau

Last Updated: May 3, 2010 11:00pm

Diane Deans, considered a good possibility to enter the race for the mayor’s chair, has decided against making the plunge.

Instead, Deans announced Monday she’ll be running again for councillor in Gloucester-Southgate.

“Running for mayor is a tricky business,” Deans said.

Absolutely.

And Deans is playing it safe by running for re-election.

The good news is the city will still have her around the council table. The bad news? She won’t be able to take the leadership role she would if she could guide council by way of the mayor’s chair.

“I’ve been talking to a lot of people. It is my intention to seek re-election in Gloucester Southgate. I’ve done extensive consultation with my constituents. They really want me to be their councillor.

“They value the work I do, and they want me to stay. I love my job, love what I do. I get a lot of personal satisfaction in the work I do as a city builder, so I’m seeking seek another term,” she said.

Too bad for the city as a whole, good news for residents of Gloucester-Southgate. Deans could have offered Ottawa voters a real option to the two frontrunners in the race.

Around council, Deans is a bright light, often taking a leadership role as she grills staff for the real and entire story around an issue.

Take the recent debate surrounding the $155-million purchase of new buses.

Deans rightly wanted to know not just the surface details, but the nitty-gritty.

What guarantee was there for Ottawa residents? Was the company, New Flyer, at any risk? What about the future possibility of parts for the buses? What about the lawsuit against the company the city had waged? Why the rush. Where was the fire?

Deans knows her stuff, does her homework, and isn’t afraid to be the one leading the opposition. In the end, she didn’t win the day, and was one of just three who voted against the plan.

And while she doesn’t always win the vote, her strong line of questioning never fails to raise awareness of the issue.

Making the decision to stay away from the mayor’s race wasn’t an easy one for Deans.

“It’s not something you take lightly. You consult a lot of people. It’s not just about me, it’s the city and people you represent. I think it became really clear to me to stay where I am.”

Deans said she’s hoping the new mayor proves to be a strong leader with a real vision for the city.

She worries the decision to cancel the north-south light rail plan made under former mayor Bob Chiarelli has really hurt the city — and set it back.

Can’t help but wonder if her homework on that file helped raise light rail to an election issue.

It was Deans who first suggested there was too much secrecy surrounding the plan, that council had been forced to approve it along the way without enough of the necessary details.

Deans’ decision on Monday, following the same one recently made by Alta Vista Coun. Peter Hume, another strong contender, leaves just two viable candidates for the mayor’s race — Bay Coun. Alex Cullen and former mayor Jim Watson.

When it comes to campaigning, Culled admits he’s barely in the race to date, though he’s promised to re- launch his campaign.

With Deans’ decision, Watson could be the runaway candidate.

That’s not good for anyone.

There’s no doubt O’Brien would love to run again, but only if he could win.

That seems unlikely.

And it seems equally unlikely he’ll risk his reputation if a loss is on the horizon.

Watson is a strong candidate, no doubt. He’s clearly well-organized, has the money to launch a strong campaign, and has the experience to do the job.

But choice is supposed to be what democracy is all about.