White Paper |
A. |
Ottawa as the Greater Area’s Growth Driver – How much does Ottawa’s employment market contribute to the growth of adjacent municipalities? |
B. |
How Ottawa’s Policies Impact Development outside the City – Are Ottawa’s tight urban boundary and high development charges contributing to the acceleration of development in adjacent municipalities? |
C. |
Use of Ottawa’s Infrastructure by Non-Residents– How much of Ottawa’s infrastructure is used by people who pay property taxes to other municipalities? |
D. |
Addressing Growth and Development Across the Greater Area – Should, and can, Ottawa do something to influence the amount of development in adjacent municipalities? |
Quick Facts |
Background
In Ontario, the most significant example of cross-jurisdictional planning is the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and the extended Greater Golden Horseshoe, which are the focus of the recent provincial Places to Grow Act and Growth Plan. It has long been acknowledged that the Greater Toronto Area forms a single economic and social entity, a single labour and housing market, and a single commuting area, of about 5 million people. As a result, it was recognized that big-picture planning was required for infrastructure, especially the transportation and sewer and water infrastructures, and the protection of natural areas and resources such as the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The Greater Ottawa-Gatineau Area has reached a stage where its metropolitan reach goes well beyond the boundaries of the two central cities, Ottawa and Gatineau. There are GTA-like dynamics, albeit at a smaller scale, that have gradually led to the formation of an increasingly integrated metropolitan economy, labour market, housing market and commuting area centered around Ottawa and Gatineau. The main difference between Ottawa-Gatineau and the GTA, aside from overall population size, is the greater importance of the central cities The city of Toronto accounts for only 45% of the GTA’s population (and a much smaller share of the Greater Golden Horseshoe’s population, which takes in Hamilton, St. Catharines, and Kitchener-Waterloo), while Ottawa and Gatineau combine for 85% of the metropolitan population.
Although the recent regional rail discussions have brought this matter into focus, it remains a relatively nascent reality in Ottawa when compared to the GTA, which has been aware of its larger metropolitan reality for decades and still struggles to plan efficiently at that level.
Currently, the two central cities of the Greater Area, Ottawa and Gatineau, exhibit the most cooperation, particularly for transportation planning. Several of the adjacent Ontario and Quebec municipalities use their proximity to the two central cities to support population growth projections in their Official Plans. Aside from this, there is no metropolitan growth management strategy and no overall analysis of the role of each municipality within the Greater Area in any of the existing planning documents.
Between 2001 and 2006 there were 58,221 housing starts in the Greater Area. Of this total, 63% were in Ottawa, 22% in Gatineau, 10% in Ontario Municipalities Adjacent to Ottawa (OMATO) and 5% in Québec Municipalities Adjacent to Gatineau (QMAG). Most of the residential construction outside the two central cities took place in Prescott-Russell (5% of the overall total) and Les-Collines-de-l’Outaouais (5%). Other places of activity include adjacent municipalities in Lanark County and in Leeds and Grenville. In both cases, a four-lane divided highway, either existing (Hwy. 416) or scheduled for completion (407 to Carleton Place), is stimulating out-migration from Ottawa and encouraging commuting.
Notably, Gatineau has captured an increasing share of Greater Area housing starts between 2001 (17%) and 2006 (26%). The price difference between dwellings in Ottawa and Gatineau largely explains this phenomenon (in 2006 the average resale dwelling was 57% more expensive in Ottawa than in Gatineau). In a way, Gatineau is responding to Ottawa’s need for affordable housing. This also has the effect of strengthening the links between the two central cities and increasing cross-commuting.
As of the 2001 Census, there were about 85,000 people working in Ottawa and living in the adjacent municipalities. Of this number, about 46,000 (54%) live in Gatineau, 32,000 (38%) in OMATO, and 7,000 (8%) in QMAG. Conversely there were almost 20,000 Ottawa residents working in adjacent municipalities, 82% of which work in Gatineau, slightly less than 18% in OMATO, and a negligible number in QMAG. Similar data from the 2006 Census will be available in 2008. The City’s draft projections suggest that by 2031 there could be up to about 130,000 people working in Ottawa and residing in adjacent municipalities, a 53% increase.
There is not as much detailed information or tracking of non-residential development in adjacent municipalities. While the more significant developments, such as new federal office buildings slated for Gatineau, or major retail developments in Gatineau and OMATO, are usually reported in the media, no comprehensive sharing of information between municipalities exists. The City of Ottawa has been circulating copies of its Annual Development Report to adjacent municipalities in Ontario and Quebec for the last two years.
A. Ottawa as the Greater Area’s Growth Driver
In the last year or so there have been a number of high-profile plant closures in adjacent municipalities (Pfizer, Nestlé, Hershey, Boeing, Domtar) that have strengthened the dependence of adjacent municipalities on Ottawa’s employment market. The gradual extension of provincial highway systems has also shortened the travel time between Ottawa and residential locations farther afield.
The opening of Highway 416 in the late 1990s has set off a development boom in North Grenville. The extension of Highway 417 has facilitated commutes to Kanata’s high-tech jobs from western locations such as Arnprior, McNab/Braeside and Mississippi Mills. The twinning of Highway 7 (now underway) to Carleton Place has sparked a residential boom in that community and surrounding areas in Beckwith Township and southern Mississippi Mills, even before the completion of the new freeway. With the extension of Autoroute 50 past Buckingham, increases in residential development are taking place in the Papineau MRC. Similarly, the announced extension of Autoroute 5 into Wakefield will likely increase residential development in Les-Collines-de-l’Outaouais and La-Vallée-de-la-Gatineau MRC’s.
As mentioned earlier, the City of Ottawa accounts for two-thirds of the metropolitan population but over three-quarters of its jobs. Ottawa and Gatineau together have 85% of the metropolitan population but 92% of the jobs. The percentage of employed people working in Ottawa varies among each of the adjacent municipalities but is higher in the municipalities with direct freeway access to Ottawa. A clear majority of several municipalities’ employed labour force works in Ottawa.
The opposite is not yet true. The other adjacent municipalities in both Ontario and Quebec are still too small in terms of population and employment base to attract a significant amount of reverse commuting. It is possible that as these communities grow, their employment base will broaden and the number of reverse commutes from Ottawa may also increase. As of 2001 however, there were about ten times more people commuting into Ottawa from OMATO than the other way around. This shows that most adjacent municipalities, as they become more integrated into the metropolitan commuting area, increasingly take on a role of bedroom community for the central cities, as is the traditional North American pattern.
Therefore, it is fair to say that Ottawa’s employment market contributes, to varying degrees, to the growth of adjacent municipalities. In many cases it contributes to a great degree.
Gatineau is a separate case; it is a central city like Ottawa and it forms, with Ottawa, the metropolitan core. Specifically, the metropolitan downtown core, which is where the greatest number of jobs are located, spans the two cities across the Ottawa River. A large number of Gatineau residents work in Ottawa but a significant number of Ottawa residents work in Gatineau; the exchange is therefore on a much more equal footing.
Question for Discussion
- How much does Ottawa’s employment market contribute to the growth of adjacent municipalities?
- Is the growth of adjacent municipalities a factor of their own economic growth or to what extent is their proximity to Ottawa responsible for their growth? Why?
- How much interdependence is there between Ottawa’s labour market and the adjacent communities?
B. How Ottawa’s Policies Impact Development Outside the City
Despite the amount of residential construction taking place in adjacent municipalities, it is important to remember that the City of Ottawa has maintained a relatively stable share (two-thirds) of the metropolitan population since 1976 (it has even increased its share slightly).
There are arguments suggesting that Ottawa has a residential land shortage that is causing developers to build in adjacent municipalities, due to perceived shortage of suitable land to meet market demand for single-detached homes and because of high land values as a result. There are similar suggestions that high development charges in Ottawa are pushing residential developers to adjacent communities.
It is important to remember that adjacent municipalities have their own growth boundaries and their own infrastructure constraints. They also have their own approaches to land use planning. In some cases (such as Mississippi Mills), country lot subdivisions are no longer permitted and development is directed to villages like Almonte. In other cases, even though there is sufficient land available, infrastructure capacities have been reached and development must wait for upgrades. Therefore, the relationship of urban boundaries in Ottawa to leapfrogging development is not as straightforward as it may appear.
It is also important to remember that development charges will always be higher in Ottawa. No other municipality in the Greater Area has Ottawa’s amount of growth to support with top-level urban-scale infrastructure. Expanding Ottawa’s urban boundary could well result in even higher development charges to support the extension of services and infrastructure to a larger and more spread-out urban area, where economies of scale would be further diluted.
Adjacent municipalities will always be able to offer development opportunities at prices that Ottawa cannot match. The trade-off is the longer commute for those who elect to avail themselves of those opportunities. Large rural lots with private services are available in the rural parts of Ottawa as they are in adjacent OMATO municipalities. The proximity to the city of these large lots in Ottawa’s rural areas means that they are in greater demand and therefore their price is higher. Greely is a good example. Its closeness to a commercial core in Manotick and to places of employment in Ottawa make its lots more expensive than comparable lots in, say, Nation Township.
Because there is a large rural area within Ottawa, people who choose to live in adjacent municipalities have a longer distance to travel to reach the urban area of Ottawa. This distance is an additional factor on the value of property. While the existence of a large rural area in Ottawa limits the amount of traffic that commuters from adjacent municipalities will encounter on certain sections of the highway, it still adds to the time and cost in fuel required to get to work and home. It also adds to environmental damage caused by the increased burning of fossil fuels associated with these commutes.
The demographic profile of adjacent municipalities would be worth studying in further detail. Some municipalities might be attracting more working-age commuters from Ottawa; others may be attracting more retirees from Ottawa; others may be drawing more buyers of recreational properties that over time become winterized and used as primary residences.
This type of analysis would further assist to inform any future metropolitan growth management strategy.
Questions for Discussion
- Are Ottawa’s urban boundary and development charge policies contributing to the acceleration of development in adjacent municipalities? What should Ottawa do?
- It is suggested by some that the Official Plan’s urban boundary limit creates a shortage of land that drives builders to adjacent communities, and that high development charges have the same effect. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
C. Use of Ottawa’s Infrastructure by Non-Residents
It is important to remember that even though commuters residing outside Ottawa pay residential taxes in another municipality, they contribute to Ottawa’s commercial tax base by working in Ottawa. The commercial tax revenue that accrues to the city from the buildings where those jobs are located is in fact more beneficial to Ottawa’s treasury by itself, than if it were associated with an accompanying amount of low-density residential areas to be served with costly municipal services.
Also, commuters who work in Ottawa are likely to shop in Ottawa’s stores, dine in Ottawa’s restaurants and partake in Ottawa’s cultural and leisure opportunities. This adds extra benefits to Ottawa’s commercial tax base without the burden of equivalent low-density residential areas to serve from the same tax base.
Roads are probably the most significant piece of infrastructure used by non-residents. As mentioned above, as of the 2001 Census, there were about 85,000 people working in Ottawa and living in adjacent municipalities. Notwithstanding frequent STO transit service from Gatineau and the recent increase in transit services from OMATO to Ottawa, most trips made by those people are made by private vehicles. This adds to the challenge of meeting Ottawa’s share objectives for sustainable travel modes.
Questions for Discussion
- How much of Ottawa’s infrastructure is used by people who pay property taxes to other municipalities?
- Ottawa benefits from the daily influx of commuters who work here, spend in our retail stores and partake in our cultural activities. In your personal experience, do you encounter many people using City services (libraries, park-and-rides, day cares) who live outside of Ottawa?Ottawa benefits from the daily influx of commuters who work here, spend in our retail stores and partake in our cultural activities. How much infrastructure capacity are they using while in Ottawa?
- Is the exchange balance positive for Ottawa? Why?
D. Addressing Growth and Development Policies Across the Greater Area
It is important to be aware of the fact that the adjacent municipalities have their own growth constraints. All municipal Official Plans have growth boundaries, and all municipalities have infrastructure capacity limitations. Therefore, independent of any initiative Ottawa may take to influence the amount of development taking place outside its borders, growth in adjacent municipalities is already under existing frameworks and constraints. It would be valuable for Ottawa and for the metropolitan area in general to acquire knowledge of these frameworks and constraints to gain a complete picture of development potential across the entire area. This would produce a more collaborative environment within which to discuss broader land use and transportation issues at a larger scale, than the confrontational climate that would inevitably flow from any proactive measure Ottawa may take to curtail development outside its boundaries. In any event, other than lobbying provincial governments, there is little Ottawa could realistically do to limit growth in adjacent communities.
In addressing land use and transportation issues, Ottawa’s role as the recipient of significant numbers of commuters must be acknowledged, and Ottawa’s interest in increasing the use of transit must also be upheld. In 1997 a report on the development of adjacent Ontario municipalities prepared for the former Region recommended that Ottawa withhold support or pursuit of further road enhancements to adjacent municipalities. The recent regional commuter rail proposal further fuels the debate on how to address transportation issues at the metropolitan level. However, with the exception of Highway 174, the metropolitan freeway system is provincial. Therefore, Ottawa may wish to engage the Province of Ontario in discussions about how best to address transportation challenges at the metropolitan level without resorting to widening roads.
It would be appropriate for Ottawa’s Official Plan to have an introductory section that mentions the metropolitan context within which planning for Ottawa should be situated. Beyond the mention of the National Capital Region, it would be equally relevant to provide a thorough overview of the Greater Area and, more specifically, of Ottawa’s role as its central city and main generator of growth.
Questions for Discussion
- Should, and can, Ottawa do something to influence the amount of development in adjacent municipalities? What do you think Ottawa should do?
- Should the City be concerned about the amount of development taking place outside its boundaries? Why?
- What approach can the City take to address growth at the metropolitan level?
How to Provide Input
Send comments by phone, regular mail, e-mail or by visiting the City’s Web site before December 9, 2007.
Contact the author by phone, in writing or by e-mail:
Alain Miguelez
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
613-580-2424 ext. 27617
alain.miguelez@ottawa.ca
Go to: ottawa.ca/beyondottawa2020 and register your comments using the on-line discussion tool Ottawa Talks. Register your e-mail address at the same time to receive notification of upcoming public consultation events.
Send your comments to: plan@ottawa.ca