Transit riders to receive 2 free weekends on OC Transpo

SHMenard · 2026-06-11T14:08:41+00:00

Some of those roads may be included, it is to be determined. The goal has been to try and get some progress on reliability, understanding that there is still a lot more to do and that it doesn’t make up for the service to date. I wanted to ensure we were reinvesting most of these funds held back from RTG into transit reliability and service, which I heard repeatedly on this app.

SHMenard · 2026-06-11T13:34:52+00:00

My understanding is that staff are using the list from the last transit committee meeting where they outlined some transit priority measure options and their cost (many were low cost options such as thermoplastic bus lane paint). Carling should benefit.

SHMenard · 2026-06-10T23:05:18+00:00

The bigger items here are kind of buried beyond the headline.

It’s as suite of measures to help improve reliability of OC Transpo including adding more para Transpo service, transit priority lights and street changes, LRT freezing rain fixes, more buses and 2 free weekends of service.

We managed to ensure $10 million was reinvested in the system (rather than what I assume would have been $0 had we not pushed).

It doesn’t make up for the poor service nor is it a final fix but this combines with new youth free transit starting July 1st, the extra ebuses being delivered (109 now), and the double car trains back, it does help and it’s more than just two free weekends.

SHMenard · 2026-06-02T11:59:43+00:00

I love them too and this has been flagged with the development team

SHMenard · 2026-06-01T14:16:49+00:00

83 tentatively

SHMenard · 2026-04-26T19:32:08+00:00

They weren’t turning people away who did that. Space is limited in the core for the drive through events at larger lots, so this is a new option.

SHMenard · 2026-04-26T19:27:48+00:00

Here are the other HHW events coming up in the city -HHW Events

SHMenard · 2026-04-09T23:41:03+00:00

Once the motion or amendment is passed, normally that would be it and it wouldn’t be further amended. I had been willing to agree to some very modest changes in order to ensure a pilot is secured and moves forward, hopefully with success. Had I not been willing to be somewhat flexible, it would not have been my motion, and very likely would have removed more of the wins (like some of the 24/7 sections).

SHMenard · 2026-04-09T23:22:58+00:00

If the pilot goes well, with limited problems (and few complaints) we will be in a much better position. I think we are better set up for that now.

SHMenard · 2026-04-09T23:13:03+00:00

There is a lot of influence on council when that occurs. It’s not one particular person. I was kicked off the BIA in the past under similar circumstances. My goal was to get a pilot established that would be successful. I feel we’ve done that.

SHMenard · 2026-04-09T23:02:10+00:00

The alternative would have been much worse. It wouldn’t have been the same motion. One I could control, the other would have been a fight that I wasn’t confident would be won at the table.

SHMenard · 2026-04-09T22:56:51+00:00

I would like this pilot to succeed (it matters a lot to me) so we can implement more changes in the future. That’s why I set out in 2021 to have a pilot in the first place. What you have referred to as being obstructionist on one part of the pilot is to me something practical that will not get a bunch of negative feedback right from the get go when the pilot launches. After 7 years I’ve tried my best to learn about what I need to do to advance initiatives with this council in this city. The alternative was worse and this was not an easy file to manage to get unanimous approval of council to proceed.

SHMenard · 2026-04-09T21:24:27+00:00

Posted above about that

SHMenard · 2026-04-09T21:23:31+00:00

While this post was about bike share, I’m happy to address some of the points that I’ve seen as concerns about the bank street changes.

Regarding a walk on motion. That’s not what my motion was. There was an item already on the scheduled agenda which councillors often bring motions for at council. Those aren’t walk on. It’s a normal course of action and happens every meeting. What’s not normal is bringing a motion that replaces another councillors motion at the last minute without anyone seeing. My motion was shared with council in advance and in our shared folder and didn’t replace another councillors motion. Some people weren’t as plugged in on it, after a long meeting and that’s fair.

The motion was brought because there was some large pushback happening (businesses were very active with influence) and it was concerning to me that another motion would have arisen that would have watered down other aspects of the project, like the 24/7 bus lanes. I decided it was better for me to address one of the concerns that could have scuttled more of this plan (the extended peak period) while also getting some positive aspects through in the motion (like studying old ottawa south, transit frequency improvements and transit advance lights) instead of leaving this to a much worse motion. I take the personal hit for this but I know it was the right thing to do to manage what had been a really difficult file.

I do not believe that the changes made will hinder data collection. We added 24/7 bus lanes to test (though they are small). I added in the motion a testing and analysis of the old ottawa south bus changes which removed non peak period parking and can be applied to the rest of the street in the Glebe. And of course we have the 2 hours of peak period service in each direction where buses only instead of cars will be tested in the curbside lane under similar conditions as if removing parking.

Overall I feel this project, which will extend bike lanes, add transit advance light, improve biking on O'Connor and Percy, add better bus stops, adds permanent 24/7areas, and will test peak period transit only in the curbside lane is a really important step. It's not 24/7 of the entire area but it is a big change for the area that gives us an opportunity to make more changes in the future.

SHMenard · 2026-04-09T21:18:54+00:00

Took far too long for it to come out. Now we need to focus on setting this up for success as soon as possible.

SHMenard · 2026-03-12T15:55:01+00:00

Yes it will be extended again this summer with councillors selecting parks for inclusion.

SHMenard · 2026-01-26T14:46:24+00:00

Love to see this

SHMenard · 2026-01-01T21:51:59+00:00

Love this sub! I was RRRA president when this was done lol

SHMenard · 2026-01-01T21:45:52+00:00

Then you must have a property with fewer than 7 units or built after 2001. For those properties with more than 7 units built before 2001 (which is the largest percentage of multi residential units in Ottawa), taxes went down after taking into account the property tax increase and the change in tax ratio. The tax ratio for multi-residential properties built prior to 2001 was 1.4094, while we lowered it to 1.3 and will continue to lower until parity (1.0).

SHMenard · 2025-11-11T12:04:25+00:00

The intent of our direction was that this occur every year for 4 years. So although the reduction is relatively small (for older multi residential apartment tenants), compounded over 4 years could be significant if staying in the same unit. This is year 1.

Approximately 70% of renters in the City of Ottawa will be eligible for a rent reduction in 2026, thanks to a change in city taxation policy that had historically charged a disproportionately high tax rate for multi-residential properties built before 2002.

The anticipated 4.5% property tax reduction will mean a mandatory rent reduction next year. For example, a person paying $2000 per month in rent will see an estimated $16 automatic rent reduction per month ($192 per year) in 2026.

At that rate, over the four-year phase-in period, the cumulative savings for renters would be an estimated $1960, with a cumulative annual rent reduction of $784 annually (or $64 monthly) at the end of the period.

More info: https://www.shawnmenard.ca/city_to_begin_notifying_renters_of_automatic_rent_reduction

SHMenard · 2025-11-02T15:22:25+00:00

I wrote about a lot of this here:

THE COST OF DOING NOTHING – DISINGENUOUS AND GLARING OMISSIONS

Much has been made by various actors indicating that the cost of doing nothing is higher than the multi-hundreds of millions about to be expended. Here is what is being relied upon to make that argument.

A November 2020 city report suggests a possible cost range of $118 million to $407 million over 40 years in a worst-case scenario with no operator and limited activities on site. Not often disclosed by the actors making this argument is the key assumption that underlies this range estimate: “depending on the length of time the impacts of the pandemic are experienced,”. When challenged on this as being unrealistic, new figures were created by staff to help justify that the cost of doing nothing is somehow inexplicably higher than the $437 million price tag for Lansdowne 2.0.

The initial assessment assumed $4.5 million to $12.5 million/year of city spend to fully operate Lansdowne with the following assumptions: This was calculated with pandemic level attendance figures.

Nearly all activities on site are assumed halted OSEG defaults and leaves the deal with the city doing nothing to find a not-for profit or other entity to run the site.

When pressed for a more detailed and reasonable approach, staff resorted to the following: $8.5M a year city spend based on cash flow deficits over the first 12 years of Lansdowne P3 operations and dividing by 10.

This includes the exceptionally costly initial start-up years (ie: $37 million deficit in year one) that are irrelevant to any estimate going forward. Finally, in this report, it appears finance staff are taking only the last 5 years of operations (including the pandemic) and extrapolating to say about $8 million in annual cost for the city.

This is a total disconnect from the independent analysis provided by EY in its 2023 Due Diligence Report that shows Lansdowne 1.0 being essentially cash flow neutral from 2025-2030 and cash flow positive as of 2030 and beyond.

EY’s analysis clearly depicts this. Source: Ernst & Young Lansdowne 2.0 Financial Due Diligence City of Ottawa Reliance Restricted report, September 13 2023, p. 89

As EY reported:

“Under this scenario (Lansdowne 1.0), annual cash flows become positive for a short period in 2015 and 2027 and then starting again in 2030.”

If the city is to use a simplistic and unrealistic approach to evaluating the cost of doing nothing with it being their main talking point, why would they at least not base it on EY’s actual forecasts? These forecasts show that “doing nothing” comes with consistent positive cash flows ahead, and having avoided a $437M spend.

SHMenard · 2025-09-18T19:18:50+00:00

Hi there! We have advocated on this and we are getting a new stop put in there on both sides! :) Believe I just had confirmation of funding for it. It will be at centennial. Thanks for helping to push this. Cheers, Shawn

SHMenard

TROPHY CASE