OC Transpo

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Toronto alone is getting $30 Billion in capital investment on subway lines (new money in 2019 for lines that were lines on a napkin). City of Toronto's contribution is $5 Billion on top of that... for operations and maintenance. That would translate to $10 Billion for Ottawa. We're getting like $70 million (?) for Kanata North BRT, on the condition the Feds and the City fund 1/3 each.

I would like to see the math and fuller methodological note that is masked by the phrase "indicative average" in the label for GTHA LRT projects column.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They know what needs to be done. They don't want to do it. Don't see why federal and provincial taxpayers should pay though.

This is the same situation as any other larger city in Canada that I can think of. Across the board, they keep municipal taxes low to the point that revenues are declining in inflation-adjusted terms. Then they demand bailouts from the senior orders of government with the ability to get themselves into sovereign debt.

I don't see any reason why the general Ontario taxpayer should be bailing out Ottawa or Toronto or any other municipality. That just ends up creating not just real subsidies, but inherent ones, shuffling money and political liabilities around that shouldn't be shuffled around. The municipal and provincial taxpayer in Orillia, or a provincial-only taxpayer in some unincorporated remote locality, should not be paying for Ottawa or Toronto's operational costs.

The same is even more true federally.

This isn't to say municipalities shouldn't get funding from other orders of government for ongoing program or capital funding streams that are of general application or serve specific purposes. But if cities have big holes in their operating budgets, they also have the tools to fill those holes: raise your damn mil rates to start, and stamp out NIMBYism to generate more revenue in the future, reducing your costs per-area and per-capita.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Just chiming in to say that Tom Brown arena is in no way dilapidated and is very well-used as it serves a wide local area. The City would need a replacement (originally the Sensplex in the RVL proposal was that) before it can get rid of the arena. Intensification only works if you continue to provide amenities in those areas.

Hope that will still be the case, a Sensplex at Tom Brown. That would be a good way to contribute to the new Sens arena while limiting City's financial contribution; give them the land, or sell it for cheap, Sens build a Sensplex and a couple towers, in exchange, City gets x hours for public use and y affordable housing units and may .

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I would like to see the math and fuller methodological note that is masked by the phrase "indicative average" in the label for GTHA LRT projects column.

Totally agree. I have no doubt that the City of Ottawa is getting exponentially less money per capita than the GTA, and I have done a fair amount of research on it myself, but I've never been able to get an exact number. I'd like the City to break down every capital transit project funding in the GTHA and Ottawa since McGuinty (since Harris didn't fund anything, McGuinty Day 1 is a good starting point).

[lrt's friend]

I tell you we have a big problem when we impose a 30 kph speed limit on the most important entry point from Quebec and even, much of the profit is going to install more speed cameras instead of funding transit. What is a bigger priority, build new bike lanes immediately next to a MUP and not a bike or pedestrian on either.

[lrt's friend]

We need to stop blaming the suburban majority for everything. A lot of our financial problems trace to our political elite who make irresponsible promises that are not sustainable in the long-term. Then we get the citizen elite who are always demanding expensive improvements to suit their personal priorities. The current Bank Street widening is not one of them. This should have been done 10 or 15 years ago to reflect the enormous growth in the area .

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You really gotta inform yourself before responding. I'm talking about projects like Bank St. South widening or the Airport Road reconfiguration. That doesn't have to do with bike lanes or pedestrians. These suburban projects are all about car lanes. Bikes lanes and sidewalks are secondary goals. And these are routes that are congested maybe less than an hour in total per day. And there's literally a billion dollars budgeted towards low yield projects like this.

You can rant all you want. But there's no getting around physics. Car lanes are expensive to build and maintain. The more of them we build, the bigger the fiscal hole. So either they raise taxes or cut services. Or both. Not liking this choice and whining doesn't take it away.

Sure. Sell that land. They can collect the one-time gain. I agree with that. Doesn't fix the fundamental problem though. Keep in mind this city got a half billion dollar bailout last year. There isn't half a billion dollars worth of land to sell every year.

We were talking about complete streets. These take away road capacity and don't save any maintenance.

The idea widening a few key roads would make maintenance skyrocket is ridiculous. I personally only venture south of the 417 (or east or west of about the same distance) once a month so I am far from a beneficiary of stroad constrcution but if you want to build houses in Manotick so everyone can have their yard you need to build roads. There is no transit solution for this type of development.

Fundamentally you are right though either cut services or raise taxes. But our attempt to strangle traffic to force them onto transit and bikes isn't working either.

A congestion charge is a win win way out but never going to happen.

Originally Posted by phil235

Just chiming in to say that Tom Brown arena is in no way dilapidated and is very well-used as it serves a wide local area. The City would need a replacement (originally the Sensplex in the RVL proposal was that) before it can get rid of the arena. Intensification only works if you continue to provide amenities in those areas.

I mean the ice works but it's pretty basic. An integrated full Rec Centre could be great.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I tell you we have a big problem when we impose a 30 kph speed limit on the most important entry point from Quebec and even, much of the profit is going to install more speed cameras instead of funding transit. What is a bigger priority, build new bike lanes immediately next to a MUP and not a bike or pedestrian on either.

This is exactly what I am talking about. That is essentially the start of a highway but we pretend it is not. If you want to rip up the road or charge a toll to enter central Ottawa fine but these constant obstructions just feed that war on the car anger in the suburbs but don't actually help us have an urban walkable city in any way. There is a crosswalk light where the King Edward Speed Camera is and people clowing down might marginally help but let's not pretend it is any more pleasant to walk or bike along there.

The revenue certaily isn't going to transit.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to stop blaming the suburban majority for everything. A lot of our financial problems trace to our political elite who make irresponsible promises that are not sustainable in the long-term. Then we get the citizen elite who are always demanding expensive improvements to suit their personal priorities. The current Bank Street widening is not one of them. This should have been done 10 or 15 years ago to reflect the enormous growth in the area .

I'd say quite the opposite. The fact that we poured all of our resources into a transit system that geared towards suburban commuters was entirely because our politics are dominated by the suburbs. The fact that it the system is now unsustainable is partly due to the pandemic, but it would be far more sustainable right now if we had built a system that prioritized urban mobility.

I would point to your comments about 30 km speed limits on downtown streets as a great example of that suburban lens that distorts this debate. 30 km speed limits a) only matter if your perspective is that of a suburban commuter driving through an area and b) actually doesn't matter that much even then. 30 km speed limits are only a focus for commuters who don't give much thought to the safety, vibrancy and the livability of our urban areas. If you care about those things, a change in perspective is needed. That's why it keeps coming up.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This is exactly what I am talking about. That is essentially the start of a highway but we pretend it is not. If you want to rip up the road or charge a toll to enter central Ottawa fine but these constant obstructions just feed that war on the car anger in the suburbs but don't actually help us have an urban walkable city in any way. There is a crosswalk light where the King Edward Speed Camera is and people clowing down might marginally help but let's not pretend it is any more pleasant to walk or bike along there.

The revenue certaily isn't going to transit.

Disagree. King Edward needs a redesign to make it walkable no doubt, but it is definitely less pleasant and less safe to have cars going by at 50-60 kmph.

I also don't get what the 30 km speed limit costs drivers in terms of time. Over that distance it is minimal at best off peak, and most of the time there is too much traffic to average higher speeds anyway. The objection is more psychological than anything based on actual inconvenience.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Disagree. King Edward needs a redesign to make it walkable no doubt, but it is definitely less pleasant and less safe to have cars going by at 50-60 kmph.

I also don't get what the 30 km speed limit costs drivers in terms of time. Over that distance it is minimal at best off peak, and most of the time there is too much traffic to average higher speeds anyway. The objection is more psychological than anything based on actual inconvenience.

I noticed right away I'd often wait two lights instead of one because the light can't clear into the open gap. It's less noticeable now so maybe people aren't braking suddenly or it's just summer.

The overall delay might be a minute or two in normal traffic and a few more if it causes an extra light but it's a death by a thousand cuts for the suburbanite who absolutely just wants to drive through what they consider mostly pointless filler where they would never walk given they are constantly accosted by homeless in the same stretch.

[lrt's friend]

My point is that we set a ridiculous speed limit, fine people heavily, often those not familiar with the city and leave a bad taste for those visiting downtown. Why 30 kph? Yeah, yeah, safety, but it could also be 20 kph. That would be even safer. Is it really reasonable coming off of a highway bridge? There are many ways to slow down traffic. I drive down roads everyday where they use other methods and it is effective. For a major arterial, this is a cash grab and works against trying to get people back downtown. We could also choose 40 kph which I argue is more reasonable for an arterial.

Why not 30kph at Carleton? Always better to hammer fines on those who are not residents and don't have a councillor to call. Why not damage the reputation of the city that is clearly suffering?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My point is that we set a ridiculous speed limit, fine people heavily, often those not familiar with the city and leave a bad taste for those visiting downtown. Why 30 kph? Yeah, yeah, safety, but it could also be 20 kph. That would be even safer. Is it really reasonable coming off of a highway bridge? There many ways to slow down traffic. For a major arterial, this is a cash grab and works against trying to get people back downtown. We could also choose 40 kph which I argue is more reasonable for an arterial.

We should design it to be slower. But then folks like you who only drive through these neighbourhoods would be complaining about that.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I would like to see the math and fuller methodological note that is masked by the phrase "indicative average" in the label for GTHA LRT projects column.

I guess you'd have to look at each project individually, but here's a single example: the Hamilton LRT. The Province and Feds are each contributing $1.7B for a total of $3.4B. The municipal contribution is $0.

https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/10001...sting-34-billion-to-advance-hamilton-lrt

This is an entirely legitimate complaint.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'd say quite the opposite. The fact that we poured all of our resources into a transit system that geared towards suburban commuters was entirely because our politics are dominated by the suburbs. The fact that it the system is now unsustainable is partly due to the pandemic, but it would be far more sustainable right now if we had built a system that prioritized urban mobility.

Yep. We literally spend billions to cater to them with LRT. That doesn't work. So now we're literally spending billions on roads to cater to them. Which will inevitably fail because 1) Downs-Thomson paradox 2) parking is being reduced everywhere. So in a few years we'll have more roads to maintain, still have congestion and dysfunctional transit, and the very suburbanites who got us into this mess by viotng for these politicians will be here whining how it wasn't their fault.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. We literally spend billions to cater to them with LRT. That doesn't work. So now we're literally spending billions on roads to cater to them. Which will inevitably fail because 1) Downs-Thomson paradox 2) parking is being reduced everywhere. So in a few years we'll have more roads to maintain, still have congestion and dysfunctional transit, and the very suburbanites who got us into this mess by visiting for these politicians will be here whining how it wasn't their fault.

It is the political class who made these decisions and you supported some of this.

With 75 percent of Ottawa suburban, without suburban buy-in, there is not sufficient population to support a subway.

With your disdain for the suburbs, amalgamation should not have taken place. Of course, you would be in Gloucester

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is the political class who made these decisions and you supported some of this.

Who elects the political class? Your whining reminds me of this George Carlin bit:

• Video Link

And yes, I supported transit expansion. But I didn't vote for this clown. I saw this disaster coming. And it was worse than I even imagined. Who the hell thought he'd blow half a billion dollars on a stadium? His NIMBYism and love of asphalt was predictable though. And so was the outcome. I do like that the Find Out part of the FAFO is actually happening on his term.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

This is the same situation as any other larger city in Canada that I can think of.

Toronto just passed a 9.5% tax increase. Ottawa stuck to 2.5%. These two cities are not the same.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Toronto just passed a 9.5% tax increase. Ottawa stuck to 2.5%. These two cities are not the same.

100%. Let's not pretend it's some kind of incompetence. It's a choice. Actually it's interesting the exact amount Sutcliffe is claiming we need would be a 7% increase.

I doubt a referendum with two choices 2.5% and OCTranspo cuts or 9.5% and smaller cuts would even be close in our rejection of better transit funding.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

100%. Let's not pretend it's some kind of incompetence. It's a choice. Actually it's interesting the exact amount Sutcliffe is claiming we need would be a 7% increase.

I doubt a referendum with two choices 2.5% and OCTranspo cuts or 9.5% and smaller cuts would even be close in our rejection of better transit funding.

Correct. The berghers of this town would reject transit funding. Which is exactly why cuts and congestion should follow. Not a federal and provincial bailout.

Ottawa is basically where a lot of the 905 was in the late 90s and 2000s. They had massive suburban expansions. Didn't care about sustainable growth. They didn't care about transit. Then the 2010s came and congestion got worse and worse. And they had to slowly start caring about transit. This is about the time the provincial tone on transit started to change too. Not a coincidence.

So Ottawa just has to get to the point where the 905 was, where it takes 1-1.5 hrs to get home. Then voters will magically start caring about transit. Soon we get there. Sooner we get through there.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I doubt a referendum with two choices 2.5% and OCTranspo cuts or 9.5% and smaller cuts would even be close in our rejection of better transit funding.

Except that the reality isn't a binary choice like that, given all that goes into a municipal budget. Also, people may vote for the big cuts initially, but I don't think it would take very long before people realize the impact of those cuts and are clamoring for alternatives.