NCC National Capital Core Area Plan | In Progress

[Uhuniau]

People also don't tour the god-awful collection of embassies and other international buildings.

[phil235]

I was thinking that the security, greenspace and traffic congestion points sounded completely nimbyish. Sure enough, a google search suggests that both authors are affiliated with the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association.

I think the Citizen should be identifying this in their description of the authors, rather than citing their professional affiliations, which have nothing to do with their opinion on apartments on Sussex.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

I was thinking that the security, greenspace and traffic congestion points sounded completely nimbyish. Sure enough, a google search suggests that both authors are affiliated with the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association.
I think the Citizen should be identifying this in their description of the authors, rather than citing their professional affiliations, which have nothing to do with their opinion on apartments on Sussex.

I just read the New Edinburgh News' coverage of a February public meeting about this, and yieeesh. They ticked all the NIMBY boxes.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by phil235

I was thinking that the security, greenspace and traffic congestion points sounded completely nimbyish. Sure enough, a google search suggests that both authors are affiliated with the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association.

I think the Citizen should be identifying this in their description of the authors, rather than citing their professional affiliations, which have nothing to do with their opinion on apartments on Sussex.

[Emphasis added by me]

Phil235, this makes it sound as if you went digging for an ‘Aha’ moment to discredit both Macklem and McNee. Both the Macklem and McNee piece and the rebuttal in the Miguelez piece are OPINION pieces. Anyone is able to submit an opinion piece to The Ottawa Citizen, expressing their own opinion. If it is deemed ‘good enough’ by the Editorial Board, it gets printed.

And, so far, there has been no need for The Ottawa Citizen to include a fulsome biography about each submitter. Perhaps there should be a rule that every opinion shared MUST be accompanied by a detailed description on how said opinion was formed (provided by the submitter, of course). I think that, realistically, The Ottawa Citizen would not have the resources to verify all of those backgrounds.

You may not agree with all of the opinions expressed. Or you might identify more closely with one side of an argument. You are free to provide your own opinion on any matter, but to suggest that it should be more difficult to submit opinions that you disagree with is unfair.

The expression of differing opinions is important. It allows people with open minds to perhaps be exposed other factors of an issue. Too often people stand where they are and think that they can see every facet of something. Allow the person standing on the far side to say what they see, too.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

[Emphasis added by me]

Phil235, this makes it sound as if you went digging for an ‘Aha’ moment to discredit both Macklem and McNee. Both the Macklem and McNee piece and the rebuttal in the Miguelez piece are OPINION pieces. Anyone is able to submit an opinion piece to The Ottawa Citizen, expressing their own opinion. If it is deemed ‘good enough’ by the Editorial Board, it gets printed.

And, so far, there has been no need for The Ottawa Citizen to include a fulsome biography about each submitter. Perhaps there should be a rule that every opinion shared MUST be accompanied by a detailed description on how said opinion was formed (provided by the submitter, of course). I think that, realistically, The Ottawa Citizen would not have the resources to verify all of those backgrounds.

You may not agree with all of the opinions expressed. Or you might identify more closely with one side of an argument. You are free to provide your own opinion on any matter, but to suggest that it should be more difficult to submit opinions that you disagree with is unfair.

The expression of differing opinions is important. It allows people with open minds to perhaps be exposed other factors of an issue. Too often people stand where they are and think that they can see every facet of something. Allow the person standing on the far side to say what they see, too.

No digging, just became curious when the authors used blatantly nimby arguments to oppose a matter of national interest, as they put it. Tooknabout 30 seconds to make the connection.

Yes, people expressing opinions is a good thing. But where an author has a personal interest in a particular issue due to their place of residence, that is relevant information in my opinion. Why provide any biographical information at all if you are going to leave out key information? The author bios make them sound like distinguished professionals weighing in on an important matter, which gives the opinion more weight than if it comes from someone who doesn’t want apartments on their street. Personally I prefer more information about what I’m reading, not less.

I'd also note that author number one is a journalist. Pretty sure he would have a professional obligation to disclose a link he has to the subject of an article.

(And for the record, I am completely opposed to the current trend of discrediting the person rather than their position. But I see this kind of misleading bio as making that much easier.)

[J.OT13]

I think building up these few blocks will do wonders to better connect the commercial Sussex an ByWard Market with the ceremonial Sussex. Hopefully when these blocks are built-up, the City can start offering better bus service for the new residents, but also the Pearson, Diefenbaker buildings, the GG (very popular for tourists and locals all year) and maybe as far as the NCC Boat House. Electric mini buses could work well around such a route.

[lrt's friend]

Just reading an opinion piece suggesting that we need the green space and residential development does not meet the standards for such a prestigious location. To me, this location looks like abandoned blocks, which they are. We need to urbanize the location. Regarding transit, good luck. The city only has appetite to save money. There has not been transit beyond New Edinburgh since 1954. There are tourist attractions, Manor Park, and Wateridge that could all be stitched together on this corridor, but our only interest for the next 5 years is Line 1 Stage 2 and cutting bus routes further.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Just reading an opinion piece suggesting that we need the green space and residential development does not meet the standards for such a prestigious location. To me, this location looks like abandoned blocks, which they are. We need to urbanize the location.

I would honest to dog rather a demolished and "vacant" lot be left as gravel and demolition debris, rather than grassed over and turned in Magical Happy Precious Public Open Green Space.

Regarding transit, good luck. The city only has appetite to save money. There has not been transit beyond New Edinburgh since 1954. There are tourist attractions, Manor Park, and Wateridge that could all be stitched together on this corridor, but our only interest for the next 5 years is Line 1 Stage 2 and cutting bus routes further.

At very least, I don't understand why seasonal Plane Museum service can't be routed via Sussex to also serve River House, the Musical Ride, Rideau Hall, etc., plus destinations east/south of Rockcliffe Airport, connecting back to the LRT at St. Laurent or Blair.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

At very least, I don't understand why seasonal Plane Museum service can't be routed via Sussex to also serve River House, the Musical Ride, Rideau Hall, etc., plus destinations east/south of Rockcliffe Airport, connecting back to the LRT at St. Laurent or Blair.

Yes to this. The current set up for the Aviation Museum is extremely convoluted and I can't recall ever seeing tourists using it. For a seasonal service, it would be much more useful to have something along Sussex that continued to serve River House and the Aviation Museum. Though my preference would be a straight shot out and back from Rideau. Maybe even keep the turn at Monfort.

My understanding is that the NCC has been reluctant to allow transit on the parkways, though there have been some exceptions lately. It really makes sense in that case, where alternative service isn't really available. Lots of tourist destinations would be served, and it would open up the river pathway. It almost makes sense for the NCC to partially fund something like that.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I think building up these few blocks will do wonders to better connect the commercial Sussex an ByWard Market with the ceremonial Sussex. Hopefully when these blocks are built-up, the City can start offering better bus service for the new residents, but also the Pearson, Diefenbaker buildings, the GG (very popular for tourists and locals all year) and maybe as far as the NCC Boat House. Electric mini buses could work well around such a route.

Agree these blocks can be built up. We can expect federal buildings or embassies to be opposed by the neighbors even more than this. I don't think adding a few dozen luxury apartments is going to make this transit viable though.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

My understanding is that the NCC has been reluctant to allow transit on the parkways, though their have been some exceptions lately. It really makes sense in that case, where alternative service isn't really available. Lots of tourist destinations would be served, and it would open up the river pathway. It almost makes sense for the NCC to partially fund something like that.

The NCC needs to get the hell over it. It's not 1965 anymore.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The NCC needs to get the hell over it. It's not 1965 anymore.

I kind of get it. Rockliffe Parkway in particular isn't made for big diesel buses. That said, the NCC should work with OC and the STO to purchase a fleet of electric mini-buses to reach destinations such as these.

[lrt's friend]

This is not viable without serving Manor Park and Wateridge. There had been a streetcar that ran to what is now the RCMP stables. It also had federal funding, which can be fleeting. It was never financially viable and was gradually cancelled with decades of service cuts until it was totally cancelled in 1954. We cannot recreate an unviable service with unreliable funding. The current token service to the Aviation Museum and the Experimental farm are useless. Either integrate it with the main transit network or just forget it entirely

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I kind of get it. Rockliffe Parkway in particular isn't made for big diesel buses. That said, the NCC should work with OC and the STO to purchase a fleet of electric mini-buses to reach destinations such as these.

Transit buses are no larger, and much lighter, than the tour buses which already traverse that route. Not an excuse.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I kind of get it. Rockliffe Parkway in particular isn't made for big diesel buses. That said, the NCC should work with OC and the STO to purchase a fleet of electric mini-buses to reach destinations such as these.

It was built for electric busses? Typical holier than thou attitude the NCC has. Maybe you should work there.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It was built for electric busses? Typical holier than thou attitude the NCC has. Maybe you should work there.

Never said it was built for electric buses. The Rockliffe Parkway is narrow and has a lot of curves which are not well suited for large sized buses. Electric mini-buses (or any mini-bus) would be more suited for that route as they are smaller and more nimble.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Never said it was built for electric buses. The Rockliffe Parkway is narrow and has a lot of curves which are not well suited for large sized buses. Electric mini-buses (or any mini-bus) would be more suited for that route as they are smaller and more nimble.

Meh, everywhere else in the world (outside of North America) Rockcliffe Parkway would be considered wide enough for 3 lanes of traffic. To suggest that a regular-sized bus can't fit down that road is just storytelling at best....NIMBYism at worst.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

Meh, everywhere else in the world (outside of North America) Rockcliffe Parkway would be considered wide enough for 3 lanes of traffic. To suggest that a regular-sized bus can't fit down that road is just storytelling at best....NIMBYism at worst.

I'm not saying regular sized buses don't fit. Even driving my small car, I'm sometimes worried that I'll get swiped by a pick-up coming too fast on the other side.

I really struck a nerve by suggesting good transit services with mini-buses on a route with no transit service.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm not saying regular sized buses don't fit. Even driving my small car, I'm sometimes worried that I'll get swiped by a pick-up coming too fast on the other side.

I really struck a nerve by suggesting good transit services with mini-buses on a route with no transit service.

How about good transit using regular buses that are smaller and lighter than the tour buses that already use that route?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

How about good transit using regular buses that are smaller and lighter than the tour buses that already use that route?

"If they do it, why don't we" isn't the best way to look at this. Demand is another question. Do we need to run full sized buses or do smaller buses do the job?

In general, I think Ottawa should add mini-buses to their fleet for those lower ridership routes. Don't cut service, just run smaller vehicles. I get that labour is the most expensive cost, but cost is involved purchasing the bus in the first place, gas/electricity, maintenance of the bus and the roads (bigger buses, more damage to the road infrastructure).