PDA

View Full Version : Rockland vs. Orléans: How two communities stack up


c_speed3108
Apr 21, 2008, 12:22 PM
So it seems that not all Rocklanders seem to want the highway widened. Some seem to like the quieter place with larger lots (evidently Clarence-Rockland hasn't caved to developers and allow tiny little lots the way the City of Ottawa has :rolleyes: ). They just want better transit to get to work...imagine!


Rockland vs. Orléans: How two communities stack up
Tony Spears, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, April 21, 2008

Rockland doesn't make sense. It has box stores and parkland, housing developments and virgin creeks.

Residents embrace public transport, but spend over two hours a day driving back and forth from Ottawa or Gatineau.

So it is only fitting that Rocklanders are divided over the City of Ottawa's decision to nix the proposed widening of Highway 174, in spite of an $80-million offer from the federal and provincial governments. The city even refused a $5-million grant to study the proposal.

This came as a shock to Pamela Boisvert, who assumed the expansion was a done deal. She and husband Jacques are house-hunting in Rockland and in Orléans. This new wrinkle makes their choice that much harder.

Orléans is a shorter commute, but they feel it has become indistinguishable from Ottawa proper, the Big City.

Rockland is "a community unto itself," she said, in large part because of the swath of nature buffering Rockland from its suburban neighbour.

The road itself is fit for a car commercial. It follows the curves of the Ottawa River, pristine forest lining the south side. Trouble is, there's no traffic in car commercials. With no safe place to pass, accidents, snow and even obstinate, speed-limit-obeying drivers can hopelessly snarl traffic in either direction.

This is the crux of the matter: Rockland's strong sense of community comes from its relative isolation. Residents would love easier access to Ottawa, but how keen are they to host a migration of disaffected urbanites, eager to escape the chaotic city?

Sylvie Béland sees pros and cons in Rockland's expansion. On the one hand, more people in Rockland means better local amenities, which is important for someone who works eight hour shifts then drives her children to hockey games and gymnastics. Up at 6 a.m., most nights she isn't home before 9 p.m.

On the other hand, leaving the road as it is might preserve her peaceful, rural life a little while longer. Not that she gets many chances to appreciate it.

But Rockland is already thriving. "Booming," corrects Gilles Brunet, a neighbour of the Bélands. The evidence is everywhere.

First-time visitors to Rockland might be forgiven for grimacing when the natural landscape gives way to a hangar-sized Wal-Mart.

Further in, stone houses occupy twisting mazes of residential streets. Massive dirt pits promise more of the same -- as well as soaring property taxes.

Combined with outrageous gas prices, it's getting increasingly difficult for self-described middle-income families like the Bélands to continue to live in Rockland.

"We might as well pay a bit more to live in Orléans," she said, usually an unthinkable thought in Rockland.

With four cars in their garage, the gas savings alone would be astronomical. No wonder they bought a hybrid.

The Boisverts should take note.

Widening the road will almost certainly hasten the already torrid expansion of Rockland, which is now home to drive-through banks, Independent grocery stores and a cavernous Shopper's Drug Mart -- in short, many of the comforts of a big city.

Residents might benefit in the short-term, but, like the Bélands, they might find themselves priced out of their Eden.

But the closest alternative -- living in Orléans -- verges on blasphemous to many.

Orléans is widely derided by Rocklanders and even the Boisverts wouldn't choose to live there if it weren't for its proximity to Ottawa. Orléans backyards are tiny -- unacceptable to budding Wayne Gretzkys.

"We have a very active five-year-old," said Ms. Boivert. Just like his hockey hero, the little one wants a backyard skating rink.

Lauraine Goyette likes to describe Rockland as being "half country, half city." She has a creek in her backyard where her kids canoe in summer and ski in winter.

"It's my house and my cottage," echoed Roger Bédard, an airport worker who's lived in Rockland for 25 years. His lot measures 160 feet by 140. That kind of space just isn't available in Orléans.

The world is shrinking. Public transportation gets Ms. Boivert into town in a little over an hour, even without extra lanes. Improving service could help reduce cars on the highway.

"It's really designed for us government workers," she said, explaining that service is only available during peak hours.

Two years ago, she never would have wanted to live so far from Ottawa. Now that Rockland's thriving -- but not too much -- she hopes to combine the advantages of working in the city, with Rockland's "calmer way of life."

She'll meet her future down on Highway 174.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

Acajack
Apr 21, 2008, 1:45 PM
Interesting article, although the opening sentence (Rockland doesn’t make sense.) is a bit bizarre. If Rockland doesn’t make sense, then there are million other similar towns near large cities in North America that don’t make sense either. Including Carleton Place, Arnprior, Embrun, etc. near Ottawa. It may not be anyone’s idea of a perfectly sustainable, urban future, I agree. But all those bulldozers prove it does make sense to a lot of people. Unfortunately.

Like it or not, Rockland is almost certain to be the next Orleans. Maybe be not as massive (depends a lot on oil prices - $117 a barrel this morning!), but much larger than what it is today.

Interesting also that the reporter didn’t touch on the language issue. Contrary to westerly towns like Carleton Place and Arnprior, the growth debate in places in Prescott-Russell that are close to Ottawa like Rockland, Embrun and Casselman always has a language politics component to it.

lrt's friend
Apr 21, 2008, 2:34 PM
Unfortunately roads always precede transit or even plans for transit. By the time we even plan for good transit, we already have a terrible traffic mess and we have already convinced the vast majority of the population that they need 2 or more cars. So, like every other Ottawa suburb, this will be the way it works out for Rockland. This, even with gas prices rising at an unprecedented rate.

Acajack
Apr 21, 2008, 3:08 PM
I for one and am totally skeptical when people say high gas prices will kill auto-dependent suburbs.

There are currently tons of articles in the U.S. that say that suburbs won’t survive $4 a gallon gas down there, yet they said the same thing about $2 a gallon, $3 a gallon, etc.

Look at Europe... 4$ a gallon gas (or more) is already there and growth in driving is outpacing transit usage almost everywhere, and suburban residential and commercial development is growing at an impressive clip.

Bottom line is no one really knows how expensive gas is going to have to get in order to wean people off their cars.

c_speed3108
Apr 21, 2008, 3:26 PM
I for one and am totally skeptical when people say high gas prices will kill auto-dependent suburbs.

There are currently tons of articles in the U.S. that say that suburbs won’t survive $4 a gallon gas down there, yet they said the same thing about $2 a gallon, $3 a gallon, etc.

Look at Europe... 4$ a gallon gas (or more) is already there and growth in driving is outpacing transit usage almost everywhere, and suburban residential and commercial development is growing at an impressive clip.

Bottom line is no one really knows how expensive gas is going to have to get in order to wean people off their cars.


The thing about the way the suburbs are designed is that trips within them say to a store or restaurant do require a vehicle but they are very short trips that burn practically nothing. Which just leaves the trips downtown to work. This is where transit and trains and things come in...

The other thing most analysis does not take into account is changes in things like technology or habits. Over the years cars have certainly become way more efficient and many are getting considerably smaller. With cars also becoming so much cheaper now that it has become feasible for many people to have a small commuter car in their "fleet". I heard an add on the radio for a less than one year old Ford Focus for between 10 and 11. I believe that is ranked as the 5 cheapest car to own.

citizen j
Apr 22, 2008, 4:35 AM
I for one and am totally skeptical when people say high gas prices will kill auto-dependent suburbs.

There are currently tons of articles in the U.S. that say that suburbs won’t survive $4 a gallon gas down there, yet they said the same thing about $2 a gallon, $3 a gallon, etc.

Look at Europe... 4$ a gallon gas (or more) is already there and growth in driving is outpacing transit usage almost everywhere, and suburban residential and commercial development is growing at an impressive clip.

Bottom line is no one really knows how expensive gas is going to have to get in order to wean people off their cars.

Consider the 70s; the oil crisis didn't kill the auto industry (or the auto-oriented suburbs), but it certainly changed things. People started looking at fuel efficiency when buying a new car. Smaller cars became more prevalent. I'd say similar changes are currently taking place and will continue to do so -- the rise of the hybrid and alternate fuel-source vehicles. Public transportation use will likely increase, urban population densities will increase through intensification, but private vehicles will remain a key component of urban transportation. "Powerful interests" (to steal a phrase from various left-leaning social critics) have too much invested to let things swing too far from the status quo.

Acajack
Apr 22, 2008, 3:58 PM
Sorry to rain on James Howard Kunstler’s et al.’s parade but “peak oil” won’t do in the suburbs. In fact, I’d say an aging population (more people unfit to drive) combined with nightmarish traffic congestion might be a better bet.

It’s foolhardy to think humanity won’t find an alternative to burning petroleum for running vehicle engines. How did you great grandparents heat their homes and how many people do you know who use the same type of heating today?

Technology evolves, people innovate. It's part of human nature.

c_speed3108
Apr 22, 2008, 4:58 PM
Sorry to rain on James Howard Kunstler’s et al.’s parade but “peak oil” won’t do in the suburbs. In fact, I’d say an aging population (more people unfit to drive) combined with nightmarish traffic congestion might be a better bet.

This the thing with suburbs. There isn't nightmarish congestion in the 'burbs the roads work just fine. The congestion is on the commute into the city.

As for a gas prices, just living in the burbs does not burn much gas. For example Orleans has no less than 9 major supermarkets not even counting Walmart, Zellers or GT. Consequently no one really more than a few kilometers from stores and therefore the gas usage becomes very negligible. Therefore for a retired person the burbs a quiet an easy place to live. If the house is paid off, they a quiet cheap too.


It’s foolhardy to think humanity won’t find an alternative to burning petroleum for running vehicle engines. How did you great grandparents heat their homes and how many people do you know who use the same type of heating today?

Technology evolves, people innovate. It's part of human nature.

This is what most of these studies do not take into account is human adaptability and technical evolution. For political reason oil has been built up to be this all important world control thing when in reality, while it is useful it certainly does not trump the importance of a number of other things.