There’s a unique sense of optimism that comes from getting involved in a major city-planning exercise. Whether it’s a review of a new Transportation Master Plan or a local infrastructure renewal project, you feel like you’re contributing to a rational, evidence-based process.
On paper, it’s exactly what you’d want: uncountable amounts of work, input from professional city staff, and dozens or even hundreds of hours over years of public consultation, all designed to build a broad consensus for a better community. You participate in good faith, believing that good ideas, backed by sound data, will win the day.
What Happens?
But then out of nowhere late in the planning process comes a curveball, one pitched not by ordinary citizens who disagree with the plan, but typically by city staff or municipal leaders. The problem described here isn’t the fact that concerns are being raised, which can often be a good thing. The issue is how late this can happen or just how loooooong it can take to make progress towards the city’s own stated goals when something like this happens.
After all the planning work that goes into a city project, a forward-thinking plan that aligns with the city’s stated goals is finally ready for approval, and a familiar scene unfolds. A small but organized group of residents voices their opposition, focused on a narrow aspect of the plan that affects their status quo in some way. They raise alarms about traffic, the loss of parking or green space, or a perceived threat to “neighbourhood character,” arguments that frequently ignore the mountains of evidence and the broader public good the plan is meant to serve.
The city knows about all of these arguments in advance, and has come up with an evidence-based plan that not only addresses these concerns, but that relies on best practices and meets city-wide goals for safety, the environment, or housing density.
This isn’t a theoretical problem; it’s a pattern we see derail progress across Ottawa on a regular basis.
Let’s talk about a few recent examples of this manifesting in different ways over just the last couple of years in the eastern part of the city.
Manor Park Sidewalks
Take the planned infrastructure renewal that led to a huge debate in Manor Park. As part of this necessary renewal that includes digging up streets, city policy and best practices called for adding sidewalks to a handful of streets that have never had them, a cost-effective way to improve safety and accessibility, especially with the school nearby meaning kids will be out walking all the time.
But a vocal campaign against the sidewalks, based on preserving a specific “neighbourhood character,” convinced the local councillor to defer the planned addition of sidewalks while the renewal works starts. This likely means sidewalks just won’t happen, at least not for a few more decades. A city-wide policy for public safety was undone by a hyper-local preference.
Queenswood Heights Cycling Lanes
Or look at the proposed active transportation links in Orleans a couple of years ago. The city identified several key roads—Tompkins Avenue, Duford Drive, and others—that needed bike lanes to fill gaps in the network, including connecting residents to local schools and community services. These plans were approved in the Transportation Master Plan and ready to go ahead. Public consultation in 2024 showed a majority of residents supported the plan, by nearly a 2:1 margin. Parts of this project still exist on the Transportation Master Plan but who knows whether they will ever happen at this point.
It’s very frustrating as an active transportation advocate to read the report from the city based on comments received during consultations. Most detractors are concerned about parking on the street at parks and believe there is not enough cycling to justify these lanes. A vocal minority using tired talking points that the city has already considered and ignored somehow convinced the city to change direction entirely. A focus on the removal of some on-street parking the city absolutely thought about in planning was enough to get the entire project put on hold indefinitely.
Jeanne d’Arc and Orléans Blvd
Even infrastructure needed to support and funnel people to our multi-billion dollar LRT investment in the community isn’t safe from this process, although luckily nothing has been blocked completely so far. After I started putting this list of projects together for an article, I realized that the ongoing saga that has been planning on Jeanne d’Arc and Orléans Blvd has way too much information to stuff into a single article, so I’m going to be leaving those chronicles in their own separate piece you should absolutely read.
In short, we have been waiting about a year for design plans to renew these two streets that desperately need a more balanced transportation approach for moving people around the community across and along these arterial barriers. We have absolutely no visibility into the process from the outside, we rely on bits and pieces of information that come across our radars to figure out when we can expect any news or updates on when things might happen.
Something in the ‘gears’ at the city is causing friction here and its unendingly frustrating because red tape and construction snags already cause all kinds of delays on infrastructure projects.
The Outcomes (Broadly)
In each case, councillors are put in an impossible position: support a well-researched plan with diffuse, long-term benefits for the whole city, or appease the small, loud group of voters in the room right now. Too often, the path of least resistance is to delay, dilute, or simply kill the plan.
The result is a uniquely frustrating experience. You realize you’ve brought a well-researched, multi-volume encyclopedia to a knife fight. But the real damage isn’t just the loss of one good project; it’s the corrosive effect this has on civic engagement. When residents see that years of work can be so easily overturned, it breeds cynicism. Why bother participating if a few loud voices can hijack the entire process? This is how you burn out the very people who are trying to build a better city.
What Can We Do?
But the lesson here isn’t to give up; it’s to change the strategy. The silent majority that supports positive change—the people who want more walkable streets, more housing options, and a more fiscally resilient community—can no longer afford to be silent.
Advocates for good urbanism need to become as organized and vocal as the opposition. We need to show up not just to propose good ideas, but to actively and vocally defend the good plans already on the table.
This is the new call to action:
- Show Up for “Yes.” Attend those community meetings and city committee delegations not just to fight bad ideas, but to speak passionately in favour of the good ones.
- Provide Political Cover. When we show up in support, we give elected officials the political cover they need to make the right long-term decision, even when it’s unpopular with a handful of people.
- Join the Team. The solution to advocate burnout isn’t to quit; it’s to build a bigger team. Joining your local community association or an advocacy group (like The New Orleans locally, or Strong Towns Ottawa city-wide), is the most effective way to be part of a coordinated, positive voice for change.
The systems that created our car-dependent suburbs were the result of specific policy choices. We can, and must, make new choices. But that will only happen if the people who want a better future show up to demand it.
Leave a Reply