How Council Votes

How Your Council Votes

Lansdowne 2.0: Where Rideau-Rockcliffe Stands

Your Ward: Rideau-Rockcliffe (Ward 13)

Your councillor: Rawlson King (voted NO)

Ward housing pressure: 19.4% of households in core housing need. In Overbrook specifically: 26% of renters in housing need, 30% spending 30%+ of income on rent.

The question: Council voted 15-10 to approve a $419 million Lansdowne project. Your councillor argued the money depended too heavily on speculative revenues. Given your ward's housing crisis, was he right?

November 7, 2025 Final Vote

15

In favour

10

Opposed

All votes In favour Opposed

Loading vote data...

Sorry, not sorry

 

They Just Don't Care About Us: What Tokyo's 20-Second Apology Reveals About Ottawa

In November 2017, Japan's Tsukuba Express issued an official apology. The transgression? A train departed Minami Nagareyama Station 20 seconds early.

No passengers complained. No one missed the train. The impact was negligible. The railway company apologized anyway, posted the statement to its website, and committed to preventing it from happening again.

Six months later, JR West did the same thing: apologized publicly for a 25-second early departure that actually did cause a handful of passengers to miss their train and arrive six minutes late at their destination.

Most people outside Japan find these apologies absurd. But they're not absurd—they're a message. And that message is: we care enough about your time to maintain discipline even when no one would notice if we didn't.

The Contrast Ottawa Commuters Live With

Here's what an OC Transpo commuter experiences instead.

A bus scheduled for 8:15 arrives at 8:35. Or doesn't arrive at all. You check your phone: no alert, no update, no acknowledgment that anything is wrong. The next bus is in 25 minutes. You're late for work. The institution's message is different: your schedule doesn't matter enough for us to plan for it.

It's not that individual bus drivers are careless. It's that the system tolerates enough chronic failure that passengers know—reliably know—that the published timetable is aspirational. That's not a technical problem. That's a care problem.

When OC Transpo's contract negotiations roll around, the public hears about budget constraints and operational challenges. What they don't hear is: We're going to be so systematically late that we owe you an apology for the inconvenience. Because that would require treating lateness as a breach of public trust, not an inevitable cost of the service.

Why This Extends Beyond Transit

The care problem in Ottawa isn't unique to buses.

Look at 24 Sussex Drive: a building identified as structurally derelict, owned by the public, deteriorating for decades while bureaucratic processes moved at their own pace. The message wasn't subtle. A national heritage property matters less than the machinery of institutional inertia. We'll get to it eventually. Or we won't. Your expectations shouldn't be that high.

Look at the St. Patrick Street / Vanier Parkway intersection: identified as dangerous, studied repeatedly, and left unchanged year after year while the city inconsistently enforced safety measures. Commuters and residents didn't need an official analysis to understand the message. The intersection was dangerous because the institution had already weighed the problem against the cost of fixing it—and chose not to.

These aren't random failures. They're patterns. And patterns reveal values.

The Difference Between Accident and Tolerance

This is the crucial point: Tokyo's railway companies didn't apologize for 20-second deviations because they're perfectionists with too much time on their hands. They apologized because they operate under a standard that treats small failures as warnings that process discipline is breaking down.

That standard is expensive to maintain. It requires:

• Enough staff to actually execute procedures
• Enough attention to detail that small deviations get caught
• Enough accountability that breaking procedure triggers a response
• Enough respect for commuters' time that you don't normalize lateness

Ottawa's institutions have made a different choice. They've chosen to tolerate enough chronic failure that small lapses become invisible. A bus 10 minutes late? Normal. A building deteriorating for years? We're studying options. A dangerous intersection left unchanged? We're evaluating the data.

That tolerance is also expensive—but the cost is paid by commuters in lost time, stress, and the knowledge that the institution isn't actually organized to serve them.

What Care Actually Looks Like

Commuters in Ottawa don't expect perfection. They expect evidence that someone is trying.

Evidence looks like: published schedules that are realistic because the system is actually organized to meet them. It looks like: immediate, specific acknowledgment when those schedules aren't met. It looks like: treating a failure as a problem to solve, not a feature of the service.

The Tsukuba Express didn't apologize because it's Japanese. It apologized because the institution's message to commuters is: your time matters enough that we've built this system to honor it, and when we fail to, we're admitting that failure to you.

OC Transpo's message is the opposite. Not deliberately—but clearly. The message is: the system works the way it works, your expectations should adjust to it, and you should be grateful when it shows up at all.

That's not a transportation problem. That's a relationship problem. And commuters feel it every time they check the app and see the bus is 15 minutes behind schedule with no explanation, no apology, no sense that anyone at the institution recognizes they've wasted someone's time.

The Institutional Choice

Here's what matters: Ottawa's commuters aren't stupid. They understand budgets are constrained. They understand operations are complex.

What they understand better is this: an institution that tolerates chronic failure is an institution that has decided its own convenience matters more than commuters' time. That's not incompetence. That's a choice.

And they've stopped expecting better because they've learned that the institution doesn't care enough to change it.

Tokyo's railway companies cared enough to apologize for 20 seconds. It's time to ask why Ottawa's institutions don't care enough to apologize for 20 minutes.

Transit...what actually needs to happen

On the 95

What a Councillor Actually Needs to Do: 

From Votes to Reliability

Transit is fixable—if a councillor is willing to do the work that voting and motions only pretend to accomplish.

We have had seven years of advocacy, record budgets, passed motions, and public commitments. And the system is measurably worse. Why?

Only 20 per cent of frequent routes meet regularity targets. 96 per cent of non-frequent routes miss punctuality targets. The bus fleet is undersized. Run times haven't been recalibrated since 2023.

The Illusion of Action

Here's what passes for councillor work in Ottawa: 

• you identify a problem, 
• you vote for a budget increase, 
• you move a motion requiring staff to study it, you get a public commitment from management, and then 
• you move on to the next issue.

Each of these looks like action. Each of these can be pointed to in a newsletter as evidence of advocacy. 

Each creates plausible deniability: "I voted for this. I passed that. I pushed for the other thing."

And none of them guarantee that residents on Route 18 get a bus that arrives on time.

 There is a difference between:

• Voting to increase transit funding (a Council decision)
• Passing a motion requiring notification protocols (a staff directive)
• Receiving a commitment from management (a promise)

And 

• actually delivering reliable transit service.

What Needs to Change: The Accountability Framework

Voting, then overseeing delivery, and publicly reporting results.

This means:

1. Demanding Specificity Before the Vote

When OC Transpo says they need $433 million for reliability improvements, don't just vote yes. 

Get a detailed breakdown first:

• Which routes are being fixed, in what order, and by when?
• What does "recalibrated run times" mean operationally, and when does it happen?
• How many buses will arrive, when, and at what cost per vehicle?
• What metrics define success—and who measures them?

Put this in writing. Make it part of the budget approval. Tie it to specific deliverables, not vague commitments.

2. Establish a Delivery Oversight Schedule—and Make It Public

Once the budget passes, don't disappear. Create a formal, scheduled process for tracking implementation:

• Monthly or quarterly progress reports from OC Transpo staff
• Public tracking of milestone completion (buses delivered on schedule? Run times recalibrated by the promised date?)
• Documented delays with explanations
• Published metrics showing actual service performance against the promised improvements

Make this visible. Post it on the ward website. Reference it in the ward newsletter. It is no longer just a a staff matter—this is now public accountability.

3. Identify the Actual Bottleneck

When things don't materialize (and they won't, consistently), the councillor's job is to ask why and demand answers that matter:

• Is this a procurement problem? (Buses can't be ordered fast enough, or aren't arriving on schedule)
• Is it a planning problem? (Run times calculated wrong, route designs flawed)
• Is it a labor/scheduling problem? (Not enough drivers or shifts to execute the routes)
• Is it a management problem? (Staff aren't enforcing deadlines or holding themselves accountable)

A councillor's job is to figure out which one it is and push for the actual solution—not just accept "we're working on it."

4. Use Test Cases as Evidence

Route 18 in Rideau Rockcliffe is perfect for this. OC Transpo committed to improving it by September 2026. Here's what a serious councillor does:

Before September:

• Get a copy of the new run-time estimates. Review them with a transit planner or engineer.
• Ask: are these based on current traffic data? Are they realistic?
• Demand to know the implementation plan—how will drivers be notified? How will the system track compliance?

In September:

• Don't just assume it happens. Verify it actually changed.
• Get the updated schedule. Compare it to the old one.

After September (60-90 days):

• Pull actual performance data. Is Route 18 actually running on the new schedule?
• Are buses arriving within 5 minutes of the posted time?
• Are stops being skipped or is the route running reliably?
• How does this compare to other routes? Is the investment working?

Publish the findings. If Route 18 succeeds, that's data showing the system can deliver. If it fails, that's evidence that the problem isn't money—it's execution. Either way, you have a fact, not a promise.

The Broader Test: Can Ottawa Actually Govern?

This matters beyond transit because it's the same pattern everywhere: infrastructure gaps, identified problems, budget approvals, management commitments, and persistent failure to deliver.

24 Sussex decayed for 15 years. The St. Patrick/Vanier Parkway intersection sits unchanged despite documented safety concerns. The road network deteriorates because every available dollar goes to LRT—which has its own delivery problems.

These aren't failures of individual councillors or staff. They're failures of an institutional machinery that treats approval as equivalent to completion. That confuses voting for something with making sure it happens.

A councillor who wants to actually govern needs to break that pattern. Not by voting harder or passing more motions. By shifting from the illusion of action to accountability for results.

The Real Job

Here's what I'd do if elected to represent Rideau-Rockcliffe:

I'd treat every budget vote as the start of oversight, not the end. I'd demand specific deliverables tied to spending. I'd track implementation publicly. When OC Transpo, Public Works, or Parks and Rec promise something, I'd verify it happened—and report the results (success or failure) to residents.

I'd publish the data. I'd call out delays with explanations. I'd ask why when things don't materialize. And I'd make it clear that governance isn't about voting—it's about making sure the voting produces actual results.

King says he'll continue pushing for specific route improvements and monitor implementation closely. That's the right posture. The advocacy piece is done. Votes are recorded.

What matters now is whether he—or whoever serves this ward—actually does the monitoring. Publicly. With data. And with willingness to demand answers when the system fails.

That's the difference between a councillor and a representative. That's what Ottawa needs.

---

Watch for: Whether Route 18's September improvements materialize, whether the promised bus fleet additions arrive on schedule, and whether the next council will treat budget votes as the beginning of accountability—or the end of conversation.

This time around, inform yourselves, vote9

This time around, inform yourselves, vote differently, vote wisely.  Vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe

King on transit - much about nothing achieved

 

The Transit Promise Gap: What Ottawa's Budget Votes Actually Deliver

King has been on council for 7 years.

Councillor Rawlson King's June 26 newsletter is worth reading carefully. 

It tells a story that's become distressingly familiar in Ottawa governance: a cascade of identified problems, legislative action, record budget approvals, and public commitment—followed by a gap between what was promised and what residents actually experience on the street.

Something has to change.

King frames his newsletter around self validation. 

The Auditor General's recent audit confirms what he warned about in 2023: that Ottawa's "New Ways to Bus" redesign was driven by budget cuts, not network optimization. 

The audit is damning. By early 2026, only 20 per cent of frequent routes meet regularity targets. 

96% of non-frequent routes miss punctuality targets. The bus fleet remains chronically undersized. Run times haven't been recalibrated since the 2023 redesign. 

Three years of his advocacy, and the metrics show deterioration, not improvement.

Yet King's response is to point to votes and commitments. He voted against inadequate transit budgets in 2023 and 2024 (prudent). He voted for record transit investments in 2025 and 2026 ($856 million and $938.7 million respectively—genuine achievements). 

He passed motions: one requiring standardized cancellation notices to councillors, another directing staff to identify high-need neighbourhoods. He supported a $7.08 million reliability package including new buses and preventative maintenance funding. And OC Transpo has committed to fixing Route 18 by September 2026.

Here's the problem: the transit system is still broken, and these actions haven't fixed it.

The Gap Between Intention and Delivery

King's newsletter inadvertently illustrates a critical distinction that matters for any resident relying on transit. There is a difference between:

• Voting for increased funding (a Council decision)
• Passing a motion requiring notification protocols (a staff directive)
• Receiving a commitment from management (a promise)

And:

• Buses arriving reliably (an aoʻctual service outcome)

All four of King's listed actions fall into the first category. None of them are in the second. That's not a failure on King's part—it's a failure of the institutional machinery to translate intent into delivery.

Consider the 2025-2026 budget narrative. King voted for a historic $88 million increase in 2025 and a 10 per cent increase in 2026, with $433 million explicitly dedicated to reliability improvements. That's substantial political commitment and real money. Yet the audit was released after these budgets were passed, and it concluded that the system cannot deliver its current schedule unless funding is brought in line with requirements. 

Translation: we just approved record budgets, and they're still described as necessary-but-insufficient to fix existing problems.

The $7.08 million reliability package—two new buses, heat tracing for the LRT catenary, and ward-councillor transit priority measures—sounds substantial until you do the math. The bus fleet needs systematic renewal. Heat tracing is one failure mode among many. Transit priority measures are scattered across wards. This is patch work, not system reform.

The Route 18 Test Case

King's specific focus on Route 18 (St. Laurent Station to Billings Bridge) offers a useful window. Residents have flagged it as unreliable. At the June 11 Transit Committee meeting, OC Transpo committed to improving Route 18 by correcting its running times, with changes expected by September 2026.

This is helpful. It's also exactly the kind of commitment that has characterized Ottawa's transit governance for years: 

• identify a problem, 
• secure a pledge, 
• announce it publicly as a win, 
• wait for implementation.

The real test isn't the commitment. It's whether Route 18's running times are actually recalibrated in September, whether those changes are based on current travel data (not old assumptions), and whether reliability actually improves afterward. 

King says he'll monitor implementation closely. That monitoring matters, because without it, the commitment evaporates into the institutional backlog.

The Broader Pattern

Councillor King clearly tracked the issue and pushed for action. It's a story about Ottawa's structural capacity to convert policy intention into consistent service delivery.

Three years ago, King warned that the transit redesign lacked "a consistent technical framework to guide service provision" and was driven by budget pressure rather than resident needs. 

The Auditor General reached the same conclusion. 

In 2025 and 2026, Council approved record budgets in response. 

Yet here we are, with the audit confirming that service is worse, the bus fleet is undersized, and run times are still wrong.

At some point, the pattern suggests the problem isn't inadequate advocacy or insufficient budget approval. It's institutional. 

OC Transpo management operates under chronic constraints—labor costs, fleet capacity, aging infrastructure, and what appears to be persistent difficulty in translating operational policy into consistent execution. The councillor votes for money. The staff commits to improvements. The system delivers degradation.

That's not a transit problem. That's a governance problem.

What Actually Changes This

For residents on Route 18 waiting for buses that don't arrive on schedule, none of this—not King's votes, not the audit's findings, not the $7 million package, not even the September commitment—matters until there's a bus that shows up reliably.

That requires something deeper than budgets and motions. It requires OC Transpo to actually have the technical capacity to recalibrate run times correctly, to sustain that recalibration across multiple seasons and route variations, and to maintain fleet deployment at levels that let drivers execute those schedules without chronic pressure to skip stops or run late.

King's newsletter suggests he understands this.

. His closing line is blunt: "I will continue pushing for specific route improvements" and "I'll be monitoring its implementation closely." That's the right posture. The advocacy piece is done. The votes are recorded. What matters now is whether the machinery actually works.

By September, we'll know if Route 18 is one data point in a pattern of follow-through—or one more entry in Ottawa's long list of committed-but-never-delivered transit improvements.

---

Watch for: Whether the September Route 18 changes materialize, whether the promised bus fleet additions arrive on schedule, and whether the $433 million allocated to 2026 reliability actually moves the needle on the 96% of routes missing punctuality targets.

On the 95

Just for fun I will add that the road infrastructure in Ottawa is...abominable.

Every available dollar has gone into LRT.

As Neil suggests, Soon this Will become a safety issue.

This time around, inform yourselves, vote differently, vote wisely.  Vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe

The mansion on the hill-24 Sussex

 

(Not the 24 - but who knows or cares anyway?)

How Not to Govern: The 24 Sussex Story

Most Canadians may know it is in Ottawa but do know know exactly where it is or what it looks like. Many might, bemused,  likely prefer if it was a fun house in which the pm was forced to live.

Consider the infrastructure gaps in the city of Ottawa...it's business as usual. Consider that King, your incumbent has been in office for seven years and is chair of the Built Heritage Committee of which 24 Sussex is a prime subject.

24 Sussex Drive didn't collapse overnight. It failed in slow motion, watched by everyone, fixed by no one.

• The official residence of Canada's Prime Minister—the nation's most prominent civic property—spent its final years as the physical embodiment of bureaucratic paralysis. 
• Boarded windows. 
• Rats and rats droppings
• Mould and mildew
• Asbestos in the walls. 
• A roof that leaked. 
• Mechanical systems held together by habit and prayer. 

The building is simultaneously too important to demolish, too expensive to fix, and too embarrassing to ignore.

So we did what institutions do best: we ignored it until someone else's problem became someone else's problem.

The Machinery of Inaction

Here's what I think happened, and you can fact-check me if you want to waste your time on government reports that say the same thing seven times.

Someone identified the problem. Probably in the 1990s, maybe earlier. A structural assessment. A facilities audit. Someone flagged that 24 Sussex required serious capital work—the kind that costs tens of millions of dollars and takes years to complete. This was not a surprise. This was not unforeseen.

Consider the infrastructure gaps in the city of Ottawa...it's business as usual. Consider that King, your incumbent has been in office for seven years and is chair of the Built Heritage Committee of which 24 Sussex is a prime subject.

Nothing changed. Not because the problem was unsolvable, but because solving it required making a choice. And making a choice is the one thing institutions are designed to avoid.

The False Binary

Here's the con: the conversation became framed as a binary. Either you spend $80 million restoring a Victorian mansion in downtown Ottawa, or you acknowledge the whole thing is a sunk cost and walk away. Those were presented as the only options—the responsible choice and the radical choice.

But that framing is itself the failure. It assumes restoration to pristine heritage condition is the only acceptable option. It assumes there's no middle path. It treats the problem as a choice between extremes rather than a question of reasonable stewardship.

Could you have restored the facade and gutted the interior for modern use? Could you have done phased work over a decade instead of a catastrophic hit to one budget cycle? Could you have even rented the thing out and used the revenue to fund repairs? The point is none of these options were seriously considered—they were traded away the moment someone said, "Well, it's either perfect restoration or nothing."

When your only options are "everything" or "nothing," you choose nothing every time. Institutions know this. They use it.

The Report Cycle

I guarantee you there are at least five different government reports on 24 Sussex spanning two decades. Each one documented the same problems. Each one made similar recommendations. Each one was filed away.

Reports are how bureaucracies acknowledge problems without solving them. 

A report is progress. A report proves someone cared. A report creates plausible deniability. But a report costs nothing and changes nothing, which makes it the perfect government product.

The real machinery of inaction isn't stupidity. It's efficiency. Why decide today when you can commission another assessment? Why allocate $15 million this year when you can wait for the next government, which will make their own decision, which will also be to wait?

The Passing Buck

No Prime Minister wants their legacy to be the one who spent eighty million dollars on a house. That's not a policy victory. That's not economic growth. That's not healthcare funding or infrastructure or climate. That's a building.

So each PM looked at the problem, calculated the political cost, and punted. Reasonably. Rationally. And destructively.

This is where institutional structure fails. There's no incentive to solve a long-term problem if you're evaluated on four-year electoral cycles. Preventive maintenance has no ribbon-cutting ceremony. Expensive decisions that prevent disasters don't make the news.

But deferring maintenance does. It compounds. It becomes someone else's catastrophe.

The Cost of Delay

Here's the thing that should make you furious: it was cheaper to maintain 24 Sussex than it was to eventually restore it, and both are cheaper than rebuilding from scratch. A competent stewardship model means constant small investments. Institutional dysfunction means deferred costs piling into a crisis.

This is the pattern. Identify the problem, do nothing, watch it get worse, then act in panic mode when it's critical. The emergency spending that results is always bigger than the preventive spending would have been. Everyone knows this. No one acts on it.

What This Tells Us

24 Sussex isn't a just a building problem. It's a governance problem. It's is symbolic of failing  infrastructure in Canada.

It's an illustration of how institutions fail at basic stewardship—not through malice or incompetence, but through structure. Through incentives misaligned with actual outcomes. Through the ability to punt a decision to someone else.

If you can't maintain the Prime Minister's residence - a building that represents your government to the world then what can you maintain?

And if Ottawa can't solve a problem it watches decay for fifteen years, why should you trust that the next infrastructure crisis will be handled any differently?

The answer is: you shouldn't.

24 Sussex stood until it didn't, not because anyone was incapable of fixing it, but because everyone was incentivized to leave it for the next person. That's not incompetence. That's the system working exactly as designed.

And that should worry you more than any crumbling building ever could.

As Neil suggests, Soon this Will become a safety issue.

This time around, inform yourselves, vote differently, vote wisely.  Vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe

Traffic Circles? Vanier and St. Patrick

 

Why Is there No Traffic Circle at St. Patrick and Vanier Parkway? 

Ottawa's Inconsistent Traffic Planning

If you've driven or walked through the intersection of St. Patrick and Vanier Parkway , you've probably noticed the ongoing frustration with that right-turn channel heading southbound onto Vanier Parkway. It's a poorly designed chokepoint that creates safety concerns for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike. 

So why doesn't Ottawa install a traffic circle there like the ones they've successfully built at St. Joseph and Jeanne d'Arc in Orléans?

Good question. I've been asking the same thing.

The Problem at St. Patrick and Vanier

The right-turn channel at this intersection has been a source of complaint for years. 

During the recent public consultation on the St. Patrick Street Bridge renewal project, residents made it clear: they want this thing gone. Safety was the primary concern. And frankly, after watching how that channel functions, I understand why. It's a recipe for conflicts between turning vehicles and people crossing on foot or bike.

A traffic circle would solve this problem elegantly. Lower speeds, continuous flow, fewer conflict points, better sight lines. It works everywhere else the city has installed them.

Ottawa Says No—but we need the data!

The city's response? When I've tried getting a straight answer from city staff, I usually get the runaround. ( fill out a foia) form They're either (as I've come to feel) not helpful or they don't want to revisit a decision that's already been made.

Vanier Parkway is classified as a "principal arterial"—a major route carrying high volumes of traffic. City guidelines apparently prefer traffic circles on collector roads in residential areas, not on arterials. .

The St. Joseph Contradiction

St. Joseph Boulevard has a traffic circle. At Jeanne d'Arc. In Orléans. It's a two-lane roundabout that opened in 2010 and it works great. Residents in that area are happy with it.

If elected coucillor I would work to cure that choke point and others like it.

St. Joseph Boulevard has a traffic circle. At Jeanne d'Arc. In Orléans. It's a two-lane roundabout that opened in 2010 and it works great. Residents in that area are happy with it.

So what's the difference? St. Joseph is a residential/commercial boulevard. It's lower volume than Vanier Parkway. It's a different road classification.  What are the data?

But if the city *can* build roundabouts, and they *have* built them successfully, why are they so resistant to even exploring the option at St. Patrick and Vanier? Why is this intersection different enough to warrant a permanent "no"?

I suspect the answer has less to do with traffic engineering and more to do with institutional inertia. 

The signal system is already in place. The bridge reconstruction is focused on cycling and pedestrian improvements, not intersection redesign. Someone made a decision years ago, and now the city would rather not revisit it.

Meanwhile, pedestrians and cyclists navigate a dangerous right-turn channel. Drivers wait at signals that could be replaced with more efficient traffic flow. And the city continues to tout its roundabout program—just not here.

What Should Happen

Someone at city hall needs to take a fresh look at this intersection. I'm frustrated but because the engineering might actually support the traffic circle. Get a traffic engineer to model a roundabout design there. Look at the space available. Compare it to what works at St. Joseph.

If there's a real constraint—if the intersection is too narrow, if traffic volumes are genuinely incompatible with a circle, if bridge geometry makes it impossible—then say so clearly. Publish the study. Explain the decision in plain language.

But if it's just inertia and institutional resistance, then the city should reconsider. 

Right now, St. Patrick and Vanier Parkway is a poster child for Ottawa's inconsistent, frustrating approach to traffic planning.

What other intersections in Rideau Rockcliffe are suitable for traffic circles?

There are quite a few others.

Claude finished the response

Lack of traffic circles creates frustration in drivers in Ottawa

15:15

How about Vanier at St. Patrick, Hemlock and st Laurent,

15:17 knowledge limitations

Acknowledged local intersections while recognizing knowledge limitationshink through whether roundabouts would actually help at those spots, it would depend on understanding:

At each intersection:

• What causes the backups? (Peak hour queuing on one approach? Left-turn conflicts? Pedestrian crossing delays?)
• What are the turning movement volumes? (Lots of U-turns? Heavy cross-traffic?)
• Accident frequency and types
• Whether signal timing is optimized or just dated

For roundabouts specifically:

• St. Laurent is a major arterial—a roundabout might create different congestion patterns if traffic is heavy
• Hemlock/St. Laurent especially: if you have high-speed through traffic mixed with local turning movements, that's trickier (roundabouts work better when speeds are moderate and relatively balanced)

Has anyone from the City looked at these intersections with an eye toward improvement? Sometimes the issue isn't the intersection design itself but signal coordination.

The real question is whether specific problem intersections would benefit from traffic circles.

Have you noticed particular intersections like Vanier at St. Patrick, Hemlock and st Laurent?

Acknowledged local intersections while recognizing knowledge limitatione are good specific examples. I don'tWe have to think through whether roundabouts would actually help at those spots

The City must look at these intersections with an eye toward improvement. The issue isn't the intersection design itself or signal coordination across a corridor, or peak-hour capacity limits on the roads feeding into them. It's volume, the lack of a sixth bridge crossing.

"left turns from Vanier backing up," "St. Laurent backed up trying to cross Hemlock"), actually tell us a roundabout would help.

Validated left turns as legitimate roundabout advantage

Left turns are one of the clearer cases where roundabouts genuinely outperform signalized intersections.

Why left turns create bottlenecks at signals:

• They require dedicated green-arrow time or waiting for opposing traffic to clear
• That turn phase reduces green time for through traffic
• Left-turners queue up and can block the through lanes behind them, creating backup even when the main corridor is nominally "green"

How roundabouts handle this differently:

• Left turns (or U-turns) are just part of the normal circulating pattern—no special phase needed
• Vehicles don't wait for a signal; they go when there's a gap in the circle
• No queue backup onto the approach road (assuming the roundabout itself doesn't exceed capacity)

The constraint
Roundabouts work smoothly at moderate speeds and moderate volumes. On St. Laurent especially—if it's a high-speed arterial carrying significant through traffic—a roundabout could create its own bottleneck if the circulating traffic gets too heavy. 

For Vanier/St. Patrick and Hemlock/St. Laurent, it depends on whether:

• The through-traffic volume on the main roads can absorb merging into a circle
• Left-turn volumes are high enough to justify the change (vs. just optimizing signal timing)

It's worth noting that Ottawa has been adding more roundabouts.

Just for fun I will add that the road infrastructure in Ottawa is...abominable.

Every available dollar has gone into LRT.

As Neil suggests, Soon this Will become a safety issue.

This time around, inform yourselves, vote differently, vote wisely.  Vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe