City of Ottawa

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Community rinks are a good idea and definitely part of the solution for downtown, but they aren't a substitute for indoor arenas. For one, they don't have dressing rooms or other facilities that are pretty crucial for a lot of the activities that take place there.

That said, you can put a rink beside a single pad urban arena, share staff and equipment (like a zamboni) and make them more efficient.

Yes they aren't a full subsititute but I think for downtown they are as important or more than an indoor rink. The people who use the indoor rinks drive there anyway so can go to suburban rinks. That's not the case for users of the outdoor rinks. Suburbs have backyard rinks and lots of other outdoor activities so don't need outdoor rinks as much. Yes in an ideal world they are all renovated and brought up to standard and we maintain the outdoor rinks and pools and lessons and..... We are broke. Maybe each ward should get it's own funds and disperse as it sees fit. We get very much shortchanged downtown on the lesson front.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We are broke.

We're not broke.

We're cheap.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

We're not broke.

We're cheap.

Could test that theory. Would a ward level tax increase for recreation pass in any ward? Actually probably downtown it's less likely to pass. A transit one might have a better chance but hard to target funds only for one ward.

OK We are broke at current taxation rates which we do not want to exceed.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

OK We are broke at current taxation rates which we do not want to exceed.

Broke at tax rate increases that fall short of inflation. Which one could consider 'intellectually broke' since clearly that sort of policy is neither intelligent or sustainable.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

Broke at tax rate increases that fall short of inflation. Which one could consider 'intellectually broke' since clearly that sort of policy is neither intelligent or sustainable.

Intellectually broke would be accurate considering many residents actually think they’re paying too much in taxes, and in fact they should be paying less, especially for services they “don’t use” like transit. Just like the how the fire hydrant in front of my building has never been used on my apartment so I shouldn’t be paying for its upkeep.

But in all seriousness, we need a mayor and council who have the balls to be frank about our budget pressures AND how we got here, instead of resorting to blaming upper levels of gov out of panic. Show a simple comparison of Ottawa vs. Canada’s other five major cities, that would make things pretty evident.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes they aren't a full subsititute but I think for downtown they are as important or more than an indoor rink. The people who use the indoor rinks drive there anyway so can go to suburban rinks. That's not the case for users of the outdoor rinks. Suburbs have backyard rinks and lots of other outdoor activities so don't need outdoor rinks as much. Yes in an ideal world they are all renovated and brought up to standard and we maintain the outdoor rinks and pools and lessons and..... We are broke. Maybe each ward should get it's own funds and disperse as it sees fit. We get very much shortchanged downtown on the lesson front.

I really hope the city doesn't go further down the road of making urban dwellers drive to the suburbs to access facilities. That is such a backwards way of planning. And I think you'd actually be surprised at how many people walk to the various skating programs and hockey at downtown rinks. Even more in the summer when they are used for skateboarding and ball hockey and lacrosse. Not the majority, but a significant minority.

I suspect that the urban rinks could all be renovated and have an outdoor pad added for less than it costs to acquire land in the suburbs and build a multiplex. Unfortunately the city seems to be eyeing the land values of those facilities, which just worsens the problem.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I really hope the city doesn't go further down the road of making urban dwellers drive to the suburbs to access facilities. That is such a backwards way of planning. And I think you'd actually be surprised at how many people walk to the various skating programs and hockey at downtown rinks. Even more in the summer when they are used for skateboarding and ball hockey and lacrosse. Not the majority, but a significant minority.

I suspect that the urban rinks could all be renovated and have an outdoor pad added for less than it costs to acquire land in the suburbs and build a multiplex. Unfortunately the city seems to be eyeing the land values of those facilities, which just worsens the problem.

Totally agree. It's actual been my only reason to have a car during some periods. The hunger games of registration means even if there is one in walking distance you are often stuck driving across town to another "downtown" location.

Tom Brown is absolutely a prime piece of land. Maybe into 9 figures. We would of course never pay that much for land to put a underused rink on that site were we doing it again. Personally I might take the LRT there this winter and I get the desire to have transit accessible stuff but that is really a waste of a prime potential TOD location. I know the money would just get swallowed up in general revenues so absolutely locals will fight any change and rightly so but if we were thinking holistically I don't see how it survives. St Laurent or Sandy Hill are different cases for sure.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

OK We are broke at current taxation rates which we do not want to exceed.

Fun fact: no one wants to exceed the current level of taxation. In any jurisdiction. Anywhere. Ever.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Fun fact: no one wants to exceed the current level of taxation. In any jurisdiction. Anywhere. Ever.

Yup. The difference between cities that work and cities that don't are mayors and councillors who have metaphorical balls and are willing to make tough decisions for the long term benefit of residents. Unfortunately, here in Ottawa, we have a bunch of cowards making short-sighted decisions to avoid backlash from residents while blaming other levels of gov when those decisions blow up in our faces.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Yup. The difference between cities that work and cities that don't are mayors and councillors who have metaphorical balls and are willing to make tough decisions for the long term benefit of residents. Unfortunately, here in Ottawa, we have a bunch of cowards making short-sighted decisions to avoid backlash from residents while blaming other levels of gov when those decisions blow up in our faces.

Yeah pesky democracy not like utopian cities in dictatorships.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yeah pesky democracy not like utopian cities in dictatorships.

A democracy where politicians mislead residents to save face isn't exactly something to be proud of either. Did Sutcliffe campaign on the promise that half way into his term, transit would be facing a crippling budgetary shortfall that will potentially require massive fare or levy hikes to fix? But I bet the "efficiencies" (cuts) he found in the transit budget surely aren't part of the hole that we now have to plug.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

A democracy where politicians mislead residents to save face isn't exactly something to be proud of either. Did Sutcliffe campaign on the promise that half way into his term, transit would be facing a crippling budgetary shortfall that will potentially require massive fare or levy hikes to fix? But I bet the "efficiencies" (cuts) he found in the transit budget surely aren't part of the hole that we now have to plug.

Well the situation is worse than predicted and nobody promises bad news. But it was pretty clear what we were going to get. He promised 2.5% and mild austerity. Mckenney promised 3.5% and no cuts. Clearly we would be looking at big tax increases if she had been elected and smaller cuts. We will now get a bit more tax increases than promised and bigger cuts.

All of this is clearly what the bulk of voters in the city who pay taxes drive to work a couple days of week and rarely use transit want. You can claim better service takes cars off the road and makes their commute better but this is mostly not true and certainly doens't resonate. Even if it was true most suburbanites aren't going to pay $300 a year more in taxes to save 5 minutes. Of course transit users might but even many of them are not impacted by cuts or just prefer the cash.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well the situation is worse than predicted and nobody promises bad news. But it was pretty clear what we were going to get. He promised 2.5% and mild austerity. Mckenney promised 3.5% and no cuts. Clearly we would be looking at big tax increases if she had been elected and smaller cuts. We will now get a bit more tax increases than promised and bigger cuts.

All of this is clearly what the bulk of voters in the city who pay taxes drive to work a couple days of week and rarely use transit want. You can claim better service takes cars off the road and makes their commute better but this is mostly not true and certainly doens't resonate. Even if it was true most suburbanites aren't going to pay $300 a year more in taxes to save 5 minutes. Of course transit users might but even many of them are not impacted by cuts or just prefer the cash.

Anecdotal sure but if you read the comments on posts by the City or local politicians across all platforms (mainly FB) it's overwhelmingly people complaining about the state of transit or traffic (which is tied to transit). I simply don't believe most residents understand the real-world consequences of tax promises that may initially seem appealing on paper.

Yes I agree people voted for 2.5% and that's democracy but who isn't going to take the carrot when you dangle it in front of them? My point is that politicians need to recognize their place as stewards of the city and understand that residents who vote for low taxes are doing so with a degree of trust that politicians aren't handicapping our city in the process.

Instead, Sutcliffe wanted to be the hero who could keep taxes low while maintaining a functional city and now that it's blowing up in his face, he's running around pointing fingers, further misleading the average resident who doesn't know any better.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Anecdotal sure but if you read the comments on posts by the City or local politicians across all platforms (mainly FB) it's overwhelmingly people complaining about the state of transit or traffic (which is tied to transit). I simply don't believe most residents understand the real-world consequences of tax promises that may initially seem appealing on paper.

Yes I agree people voted for 2.5% and that's democracy but who isn't going to take the carrot when you dangle it in front of them? My point is that politicians need to recognize their place as stewards of the city and understand that residents who vote for low taxes are doing so with a degree of trust that politicians aren't handicapping our city in the process.

Instead, Sutcliffe wanted to be the hero who could keep taxes low while maintaining a functional city and now that it's blowing up in his face, he's running around pointing fingers, further misleading the average resident who doesn't know any better.

Well the few people added to traffic because transit service has been cut (has it even been cut during rush hour) are easily swamped by the loss of lanes in complete streets and bike lanes so I think those complaining about traffic are acting rationally voting for Sutcliffe and Ford. Certainly there are Orleans suburbanites who take transit to work vote for lower taxes and complain about how slow it is because of having to change at Blair and we can call them a hypocrite but what even pie in the sky spending plan would fix their problems?

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well the few people added to traffic because transit service has been cut (has it even been cut during rush hour) are easily swamped by the loss of lanes in complete streets and bike lanes so I think those complaining about traffic are acting rationally voting for Sutcliffe and Ford. Certainly there are Orleans suburbanites who take transit to work vote for lower taxes and complain about how slow it is because of having to change at Blair and we can call them a hypocrite but what even pie in the sky spending plan would fix their problems?

I hadn't realized that was why the 417 and 174 are always such a shit shows these days.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well the few people added to traffic because transit service has been cut (has it even been cut during rush hour) are easily swamped by the loss of lanes in complete streets and bike lanes so I think those complaining about traffic are acting rationally voting for Sutcliffe and Ford. Certainly there are Orleans suburbanites who take transit to work vote for lower taxes and complain about how slow it is because of having to change at Blair and we can call them a hypocrite but what even pie in the sky spending plan would fix their problems?

I guess we fundamentally disagree here because you have it totally opposite in that the traffic caused by people opting to drive because of reliability or travel times or their general mistrust of transit far outweighs the traffic caused by bike lanes and complete streets (a theory debunked by the principle of induced demand when considering the long run).

In general no I'd say there haven't been any notable cuts to rush hour transit service (apart from upcoming cuts to 200-series routes that people might be acting in anticipation of) but I'm referring more so to the general abandonment of transit that's happened over the past decade+ ironically coinciding with a change of direction in 2011.

Yes we'd need a pie in the sky tax plan to save transit by tomorrow but more modest tax increases over the past decade would've done the trick too. And Sutcliffe and co. could at least chart us on a path that undoes past wrongs gradually and somewhat palatably but instead he's doubling down, even in the face of transit (and general city mobility) crisis and further handicapping residents down the road.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

I hadn't realized that was why the 417 and 174 are always such a shit shows these days.

It's definitely because buses are permitted to drive on the paved shoulders /s

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

I guess we fundamentally disagree here because you have it totally opposite in that the traffic caused by people opting to drive because of reliability or travel times or their general mistrust of transit far outweighs the traffic caused by bike lanes and complete streets (a theory debunked by the principle of induced demand when considering the long run).

In general no I'd say there haven't been any notable cuts to rush hour transit service (apart from upcoming cuts to 200-series routes that people might be acting in anticipation of) but I'm referring more so to the general abandonment of transit that's happened over the past decade+ ironically coinciding with a change of direction in 2011.

Yes we'd need a pie in the sky tax plan to save transit by tomorrow but more modest tax increases over the past decade would've done the trick too. And Sutcliffe and co. could at least chart us on a path that undoes past wrongs gradually and somewhat palatably but instead he's doubling down, even in the face of transit (and general city mobility) crisis and further handicapping residents down the road.

Originally Posted by dougvdh

I hadn't realized that was why the 417 and 174 are always such a shit shows these days.

Well many posters cited the success of complete streets routing cars from main street to the 417 where they belong. Is that wrong?

What amount of transit funding makes traffic even in the medium term better on the 417 during rush hour? What specific project would enable this? 200 bus routes being cut in the future? Seems doubtful but that is at least possible.

We launched a huge spending binge in 2011 so it doesn't seem like austerity that caused our current problems. There were a few value engineering things and elimination of express busses surely cost us riders but keeping those running next to trains really doesn't make sense in any realistic scenario.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well many posters cited the success of complete streets routing cars from main street to the 417 where they belong. Is that wrong?

What amount of transit funding makes traffic even in the medium term better on the 417 during rush hour? What specific project would enable this? 200 bus routes being cut in the future? Seems doubtful but that is at least possible.

We launched a huge spending binge in 2011 so it doesn't seem like austerity that caused our current problems. There were a few value engineering things and elimination of express busses surely cost us riders but keeping those running next to trains really doesn't make sense in any realistic scenario.

It's not about specific projects. The general sentiment right now is that people do not trust transit, regardless of what type of service they're getting where they live. A good start would be to fix bus service reliability, and no not by cutting 74K hours of bus service as is currently planned. Btw part of that 74K hours of cuts does indeed include the cancellation of many 200-series commuter routes. Not 200 routes outright as you may have misread, but even still only 27 routes in the entire network will remain unchanged.

Second para is such a misrepresentation of reality that I won't even bother.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

It's not about specific projects. The general sentiment right now is that people do not trust transit, regardless of what type of service they're getting where they live. A good start would be to fix bus service reliability, and no not by cutting 74K hours of bus service as is currently planned. Btw part of that 74K hours of cuts does indeed include the cancellation of many 200-series commuter routes. Not 200 routes outright as you may have misread, but even still only 27 routes in the entire network will remain unchanged.

Second para is such a misrepresentation of reality that I won't even bother.

The LRT wasn't a huge increase in capital spending for Transit? Was rush hour service cut at the same time coming out of the bus strike? That is in the past and pre-pandemic so leave that argument aside.

I think you are right about the general sentiment and even off peak cuts (along with especially reliability issues) do make someone who was driving 2 days a week and now needs to be in the office think nah transit can't be trusted right now. The inertia of driving is hard to overcome.

But back to the real 2024 world a 37% transit tax increase is going to forego those cuts. Is anyone really claiming that is going to restore confidence? Or should we just throw more money at the problem until everyone realizes their car based lifestyle is an abonination and starts living an urban life buying their groceries on the bus?