Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And yet oppose all the changes to enable improved urban design.



I've been very clear on my views. I didn't like the idea of LRT leaving the greenbelt. But if it was inevitable then let it go to a suburb with high ridership first.

If I had a magic wand, LRT would have never left the greenbelt and those funds would have been used to twin track and electrify the Trillium Line and build parking structures at all the terminus to go with the taxes on core parking spots.



And that's exactly what Stage 2 and Stage 3 will do. Why commuter rail is needed on top of the billions spend on LRT is beyond me. You know what is needed in the burbs? Buses.

Also, let's not forget the topic of this thread: rural bus service. And as I keep saying, showing me why we should subsidize this. I am not opposed to CRT running buses to Ottawa. I just don't see why they should get discounted passes on top of that.



Impacts the suburbs far more than it impacts residents inside the greenbelt.



Except for every instance when you offer an excuse on why intensification can't happen....



Ah yes. It works everywhere else in the world. But Ottawa is a special snowflake so it won't work here.

Man, you argue with me for nothing. Do you not see the nuance in my comments?

I support better urban design. I support intensification. I support investing in LRT where it makes sense. I support better public transit in general. My comment history has consistently questioned whether MOOSE's solution is viable. I have never said that city residents should subsidize rural transit. Most people have said (and I agree) that rural municipalities should be subsidizing their own service. On the other hand, one poster (who is very knowledgeable about OC operations) has said that rural passengers should receive a discounted rate (which is different from a subsidized rate) simply because the vast majority will only using a small part of the OC system and only the part that is most efficient. That should be considered only if it makes sense.

You are the one that made the comment that we should put tolls at the Greenbelt. That is not going to make a better city.

Another poster has indicated that 80% of population should live inside the Greenbelt. That is not going to happen. We would have to turn back the clock 50 or 60 years to have ever accomplished that. We have laid out too much low density development inside the Greenbelt. Too late. Yes, we can intensify, but that can only occur one property at a time. I am just being realistic. That is not opposition. Understand? Not likely.

I am interested in making Ottawa a better city. That means making the city work better everywhere. We should not be trying to ghettoize any part of the city on principle. Good grief. We have seen how that kind of thing has worked in the United States. Many American cities are now scrambling to correct much worse messes than Ottawa, created by bad urban renewal, building non-sustainable road networks, poorly planned (or totally unplanned) sprawl etc.

There is also a reason why North American cities have evolved differently than those in Asia and Europe. It is cultural and it relates to the fact that the majority of population with roots going back a few or more generations were from farms. People value having a bit of land and actually many gained a comfortable lifestyle through land ownership. This will change as people get further from their farming roots and as more people come to Canada from where urban cultures were different. This explains the very low density nature of 1950s and 1960s suburbs, when many people were only one generation off the farm and had experienced the poverty of the Great Depression and the shortages during the war.

[lrt's friend]

I think we should be returning to the original purpose of this thread, instead of pointless debates about lifestyle choices and the causes of sprawl. If we want to discuss that, then we should have a thread on that topic.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think we should be returning to the original purpose of this thread, instead of pointless debates about lifestyle choices and the causes of sprawl. If we want to discuss that, then we should have a thread on that topic.

Seconded

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I support better urban design. I support intensification. I support investing in LRT where it makes sense. I support better public transit in general.

Can you cite changes in urban design that you actually support? You say you support a lot of things and then go on to make a lot of excuses why changes can't be implemented in Ottawa.

You say you support intensification. But then say 80% living inside the greenbelt is impossible. You say you support investing in LRT where it "makes sense". And then routinely dismiss ridership numbers or projections or data for some gut feel on what would work.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am interested in making Ottawa a better city.

Your definition of "better" is certainly not shared by a lot of us. All I see you pushing is more bland suburbia. And that is evident when you try to push the argument that all areas should be equal in service:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That means making the city work better everywhere.

Ummm no. It's not possible to do that. Some areas aren't dense enough to support high capacity and high frequency services. And attempting to build service to those areas leaves guys like Uhuniau standing in the rain waiting for a bus. Opportunity cost is a thing. Capital funding for transit is not unlimited.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is also a reason why North American cities have evolved differently than those in Asia and Europe. It is cultural and it relates to the fact that the majority of population with roots going back a few or more generations were from farms. People value having a bit of land and actually many gained a comfortable lifestyle through land ownership. This will change as people get further from their farming roots and as more people come to Canada from where urban cultures were different. This explains the very low density nature of 1950s and 1960s suburbs, when many people were only one generation off the farm and had experienced the poverty of the Great Depression and the shortages during the war.

Absolutely amazing how you completely ignored and glossed over the fact that most North American suburbs developed during the advent of automobile. What did North American cities look like before car ownership? Quite similar to Europe.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think we should be returning to the original purpose of this thread, instead of pointless debates about lifestyle choices and the causes of sprawl. If we want to discuss that, then we should have a thread on that topic.

Ignorance left unchallenged does not serve discourse well. And if we're going to go back to talking about rural bus service, which you cite as a precusor to rural rail, then development patterns are absolutely relevant to the discussion.


Tell us honestly, do you actually pay property taxes in Ottawa?

[waterloowarrior]

Let's keep this on-topic to realistic discussions of the current/future rural bus network (governance, fare integration, stop locations etc) and stop getting personal. If you want to have a debate about sprawl, congestion charges, where people should live etc please create another thread.

[OTSkyline]

I think to revert the trend of suburban sprawl, we need to look at the main points.

Most people end up living in Kanata/Orleans/Barrhaven because of two things;
1) Space
2) Costs

So why is it that most new developments in the greenbelt are mostly all studios and 1 bedroom condos? Why are we not developing more 2 and 3 bedroom condos and townhomes for couples and young families?

And why is it $300,000 for a 3-bedroom semi-detached in Orleans but $350,000-$400,000 for a 2 bedroom central condo? What can the city do to help reverse this? They need to evaluate ways of making inner-city development (and real estate) more affordable while making suburban new-builds more expensive. Then, the balance will tilt more in favor of inner-city and people will vote for it.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

I think to revert the trend of suburban sprawl, we need to look at the main points.

Most people end up living in Kanata/Orleans/Barrhaven because of two things;
1) Space
2) Costs

So why is it that most new developments in the greenbelt are mostly all studios and 1 bedroom condos? Why are we not developing more 2 and 3 bedroom condos and townhomes for couples and young families?

And why is it $300,000 for a 3-bedroom semi-detached in Orleans but $350,000-$400,000 for a 2 bedroom central condo? What can the city do to help reverse this? They need to evaluate ways of making inner-city development (and real estate) more affordable while making suburban new-builds more expensive. Then, the balance will tilt more in favor of inner-city and people will vote for it.

I think that's a little out of date. It's now in the mid-to-high 300k to buy a semi-detached in Orleans.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Let's keep this on-topic to realistic discussions of the current/future rural bus network (governance, fare integration, stop locations etc) and stop getting personal. If you want to have a debate about sprawl, congestion charges, where people should live etc please create another thread.

So getting back on topic, there is very little the city can actually do to prevent people living in rural communities outside of the city of Ottawa from commuting into the city. While I agree we shouldn't have to subsidize their this, no matter what mode of transportation they choose, it does cost the city something (be it actual dollars or increased traffic and congestion). Here are some of the modes they can choose from (feel free to suggest others):

1. Single occupant vehicle to destination,
2. Carpool to destination,
3. Single occupant vehicle to park and ride then city transit.
4. Carpool to park and ride then city transit,
5. Locally funded Private bus to transit station then city transit,
6. Locally funded Private bus to destination,
7. Provincially funded bus to transit station then city transit,
8. Provincially funded bus to destination, and
9. OC Transpo service.

All of those options end up costing Ottawa taxpayers in different ways. The questions are, which is best (least bad?) for the city and can we find ways to encourage it?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So getting back on topic, there is very little the city can actually do to prevent people living in rural communities outside of the city of Ottawa from commuting into the city. While I agree we shouldn't have to subsidize their this, no matter what mode of transportation they choose, it does cost the city something (be it actual dollars or increased traffic and congestion). Here are some of the modes they can choose from (feel free to suggest others):

1. Single occupant vehicle to destination,
2. Carpool to destination,
3. Single occupant vehicle to park and ride then city transit.
4. Carpool to park and ride then city transit,
5. Private bus to transit station then city transit, and
6. Private bus to destination.

All of those options end up costing Ottawa taxpayers in different ways. The questions are, which is best (least bad?) for the city and can we find ways to encourage it?

It's not like there isn't data on how many riders such services get or how much traffic there is from a given community.

The truth of the matter is that rural ridership is so pathetically low in Ottawa, that it's not worth debating really. We're talking a handful of coaches a day. But this is become a hot debate here because it's pretty clear some folks think this should be ramped up as a path to further investment into rural transport.

I really question whether Ottawa even needs GO bus service, to the extent that Toronto has it. As an amalgamation of some rural services, sure. But much more than that? For what?

OC Transpo can provide them with a dedicated bus bay at major transfer nodes, and that should be it. Let the townships decide on what level of service they want and let them pay for it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not like there isn't data on how many riders such services get or how much traffic there is from a given community.

True, but I don't have access to that data. If you do, please share.

The truth of the matter is that rural ridership is so pathetically low in Ottawa, that it's not worth debating really. We're talking a handful of coaches a day. But this is become a hot debate here because it's pretty clear some folks think this should be ramped up as a path to further investment into rural transport.

I really question whether Ottawa even needs GO bus service, to the extent that Toronto has it. As an amalgamation of some rural services, sure. But much more than that? For what?

Is GO not a public service? I said private bus, like they currently had. I guess we could add provincially funded public transport as options 7 and 8.

OC Transpo can provide them with a dedicated bus bay at major transfer nodes, and that should be it. Let the townships decide on what level of service they want and let them pay for it.

Neither the City of Ottawa, nor OC Transpo have the authority to force the rural municipalities to contract their transportation services from OC Transpo and I don't think OC Transpo can be price competitive with a private service so it would still likely end up being subsidized to some extent by Ottawa Taxpayers, but I will add that as option 9.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

They need to evaluate ways of making inner-city development (and real estate) more affordable while making suburban new-builds more expensive. Then, the balance will tilt more in favor of inner-city and people will vote for it.

No one is going to like this, but the best way would be to prevent the demolition of single family homes in established neighborhoods. A vast majority of these old homes are being snatched up by outside developers for a ridiculous price way above asking to replace with McMansions or an ultra-modern multi-unit condo buildings. This drives the prices of these often modest homes well out of any normal person or family's price range, pushing more people to the outskirts.

If we place a hard stop on the demolition any of these single-family homes, this would 1. preserve the character of older neighborhoods, 2. make those house affordable to families, 3. attract more families to the city (families buying the homes from the older generation that raised their own families in those homes decades ago), 4. shift condo construction towards decapitated buildings, parking lots and near rapid transit.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No one is going to like this, but the best way would be to prevent the demolition of single family homes in established neighborhoods. A vast majority of these old homes are being snatched up by outside developers for a ridiculous price way above asking to replace with McMansions or an ultra-modern multi-unit condo buildings. This drives the prices of these often modest homes well out of any normal person or family's price range, pushing more people to the outskirts.

If we place a hard stop on the demolition any of these single-family homes, this would 1. preserve the character of older neighborhoods, 2. make those house affordable to families, 3. attract more families to the city (families buying the homes from the older generation that raised their own families in those homes decades ago), 4. shift condo construction towards decapitated buildings, parking lots and near rapid transit.

I would do the opposite, ban demolished buildings on lots over a certain size from being rebuilt as single family homes (the McMansions) and require townhouses. Easy density increase and might put more houses into the affordable range, providing an intermediate step between Downtown Hull and Kempville.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Can you cite changes in urban design that you actually support? You say you support a lot of things and then go on to make a lot of excuses why changes can't be implemented in Ottawa.

You say you support intensification. But then say 80% living inside the greenbelt is impossible. You say you support investing in LRT where it "makes sense". And then routinely dismiss ridership numbers or projections or data for some gut feel on what would work.



Your definition of "better" is certainly not shared by a lot of us. All I see you pushing is more bland suburbia. And that is evident when you try to push the argument that all areas should be equal in service:



Ummm no. It's not possible to do that. Some areas aren't dense enough to support high capacity and high frequency services. And attempting to build service to those areas leaves guys like Uhuniau standing in the rain waiting for a bus. Opportunity cost is a thing. Capital funding for transit is not unlimited.




Absolutely amazing how you completely ignored and glossed over the fact that most North American suburbs developed during the advent of automobile. What did North American cities look like before car ownership? Quite similar to Europe.



Ignorance left unchallenged does not serve discourse well. And if we're going to go back to talking about rural bus service, which you cite as a precusor to rural rail, then development patterns are absolutely relevant to the discussion.

Would Paris France be a better example to compare to Ottawa?

Looks more dense than my Tokyo comparison.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Would Paris France be a better example to compare to Ottawa?

Looks more dense than my Tokyo comparison.

Find a city with less than a million people.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Find a city with less than a million people.

Oslo would be my other example or Frankfurt Germany

[shawkr]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No one is going to like this, but the best way would be to prevent the demolition of single family homes in established neighborhoods. A vast majority of these old homes are being snatched up by outside developers for a ridiculous price way above asking to replace with McMansions or an ultra-modern multi-unit condo buildings. This drives the prices of these often modest homes well out of any normal person or family's price range, pushing more people to the outskirts.

If we place a hard stop on the demolition any of these single-family homes, this would 1. preserve the character of older neighborhoods, 2. make those house affordable to families, 3. attract more families to the city (families buying the homes from the older generation that raised their own families in those homes decades ago), 4. shift condo construction towards decapitated buildings, parking lots and near rapid transit.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I would do the opposite, ban demolished buildings on lots over a certain size from being rebuilt as single family homes (the McMansions) and require townhouses. Easy density increase and might put more houses into the affordable range, providing an intermediate step between Downtown Hull and Kempville.

I think you're both wrong. This city doesn't need more regulations, it needs fewer. All of the problems we're discussing in this thread have their foundations in policies that encourage certain typologies/locations and discourage others. The only way to get away from that is to generally liberalize land-use policies across the city and stop trying to dictate what housing gets built. Let the market determine where and how people want to live in.

It's bullshit like this and this that make infill development so costly, not just in terms of legal expenditures and carrying costs but also the opportunity cost of the developer's time and effort. Notice that both linked projects are demolitions of SFHs. But one replaces it with a new SFH and the other with a 6-unit building. And that is fine! If someone has $2M to buy a SFH in the Glebe only to tear it down and put up a newer fancier one, then godspeed to that person. But I'm not going to complain about a mid-density development in a core neighbourhood either! If we make it easier for many types of infill to be built, then over time we will get a mix of typologies that matches market demands.

But, importantly and as many have emphasized, make sure that people bear the costs of their choices. This has not been the case for decades, with suburban sprawl being heavily subsidized.

As to the question of "what families want", I think the relevant thought experiment is this: if you could magically transplant your home to any neighbourhood in the city, which one would you chose? How many people do you think would say Orleans or Barrhaven? Some to be sure. (It's a perfectly cromulent choice.) But I think far fewer than actually live out there. When was the last time you heard someone say, "I have finally achieved my dream of moving to Barrhaven!" The reason so many live out there is mechanical: that's where the houses are. I think a lot of these families would flock to urban neighbourhoods if only space were made for them. Maybe that means row housing, but anyone who's spent time in cities like NYC, Philly and DC knows that row housing is a flexible typology that fits rich and poor alike.

I'm not sure we can get to 80% within the Greenbelt. But we can probably get back to 2/3? As some have mentioned, a lot of the 1950s/60s houses will be "infill-able" over the next 20 years. Some will be maintained and renovated. But others will be replaced. And it would be nice if we had a regime in place that made it no more difficult to put up a triplex than a new SFH (at least re: approval/permitting).

To tie this all back to rural bus networks, I wonder if we would even have these issues in a world where inside-Greenbelt development policy hadn't/wasn't inflating housing costs with artificial supply constraints? In that world, maybe the only people who move out to Russell (for example) are those who seek rural car-oriented living because they prefer it to urban transit-oriented living. That is, it would be a taste-based decision not a means-based decision.

[acottawa]

That is an interesting philosophy. Has it ever worked anywhere?

Most cities people admire or find interesting are the product of massive state interference in the real estate and development markets.

[Kitchissippi]

Many of the interesting and desirable parts in most cities, however, are areas that were built before heavy handed planning and zoning.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by shawkr

It's bullshit like this and this that make infill development so costly, not just in terms of legal expenditures and carrying costs but also the opportunity cost of the developer's time and effort. Notice that both linked projects are demolitions of SFHs. But one replaces it with a new SFH and the other with a 6-unit building. And that is fine! If someone has $2M to buy a SFH in the Glebe only to tear it down and put up a newer fancier one, then godspeed to that person. But I'm not going to complain about a mid-density development in a core neighbourhood either! If we make it easier for many types of infill to be built, then over time we will get a mix of typologies that matches market demands.

Those two examples are of local residents concerned with new out-of-scale developments that will ruin the character of their area. That's always going to happen regardless of regulations. I've driven through these old neighborhoods, and I totally agree that this kind of development does not belong where proposed. 900 Albert I don't have an issue with; the intersection of two rapid transit lines is the best place for that kind of height, but the City should not have created a cdp with local residents they had no intention of upholding.

The issue in Ottawa isn't over-regulation. The problem is that the City approves just about anything, whether the project respects zoning/cdp or not. The only place where zoning is strict is within the CBD where we have height restrictions to protect Parliament sightlines.

Vancouver is another place where they seem to approve and build just about anything, and because of this everyone is priced out of the market.

The way to make a place affordable is to balance regulation in certain areas, and leave room for more flexibility in others. Encourage density near transit lines, protect low-density residential neighborhoods to leave room for young families with limited budgets.

Off topic again. Sorry. Do we have a thread for this? Could a moderator move this conversation to an appropriate thread or create one to move the conversation?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No one is going to like this, but the best way would be to prevent the demolition of single family homes in established neighborhoods. A vast majority of these old homes are being snatched up by outside developers for a ridiculous price way above asking to replace with McMansions or an ultra-modern multi-unit condo buildings. This drives the prices of these often modest homes well out of any normal person or family's price range, pushing more people to the outskirts.

It also drives up the cost of housing overall, by artificially reducing the supply of homes that aren't single-family-detached.

If we place a hard stop on the demolition any of these single-family homes, this would 1. preserve the character of older neighborhoods,

Other than architectural heritage, what's the public policy goal in "preserving the character" of any given neighbourhood?

2. make those house affordable to families,

Nope.

3. attract more families to the city (families buying the homes from the older generation that raised their own families in those homes decades ago)

Older homes in older neighbourhoods are going to appreciate faster than average no matter what: location, location, location. They are homes that appeal to (and are afforded by) upwardly-mobile middle-aged people, not young families.