Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

We can stop building places that are completely structured around the automobile tomorrow, even without a transit system, if we choose to.

We choose not to. Ottawa loves 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, ugly, sprawl. Loves it.

It's a North American thing and Ottawa is far from having the worst sprawl. You should visit californian cities, or just Montreal (where it's out of control), to get a grasp of this.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

YYYYMMDD is the bestest format of them all.

Agreed. Not sure where I everyone everywhere does not use it. It would avoid so much confusion.

[J.OT13]

Maybe it's because I'm French-Canadian, le 8 août, 2014 and not 2014 août le 8.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Maybe it's because I'm French-Canadian, le 8 août, 2014 and not 2014 août le 8.

Yes, but that involves letters and words and whatnot.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

It's a North American thing and Ottawa is far from having the worst sprawl. You should visit californian cities, or just Montreal (where it's out of control), to get a grasp of this.

Montreal is much more embracing of urbanity than Ottawa is. And Ottawa is behind the curve on building less crappy suburbs than many other North American cities. Maybe it's because our builders are still stuck in 1973. Or the clowncil. Or both.

Either way, Ottawa keeps undertaking these big expensive official planning exercises which talk about the need for more compact and diverse, urban, built forms... and then keeps approving more 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 suburbs.

If we are going to keep building 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 suburbs, let's stop wasting time, money, and effort on these 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 plans. Abolish the planning department and let developers build whatever 🞵🞵🞵🞵 they want: that's what happens in practice, anyway, so let's stop pretending, and spending, otherwise.

[eemy]

The main benefit of the yyyymmdd format and the principal reason I use it is the fact that it sorts correctly.

[Radster]

Just to add some fuel to the bus vs LRT fire, I came across this article last week, I am sure some of you will recall hearing about this guy! No one loves busses more than him, and no one hates LRT more than he does.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-07...1_1_light-rail-feeder-buses-rail-transit

[Cre47]

Maybe he should board one of the 90-series routes during the week and he will realize that we are long overdue for rail

[silvergate]

If we really want more transit ridership and transit funding maybe we should start looking at electronic highway tolls for drivers entering downtown. A fee more expensive than transit fare might convince some commuters to make a switch.

[JM1]

Or do what Europeans do and turn downtown streets into pedestrian zones. It is not the same as having sparks street. It is about having a whole sector downtown where people must walk, bike, or use transit.

Originally Posted by silvergate

If we really want more transit ridership and transit funding maybe we should start looking at electronic highway tolls for drivers entering downtown. A fee more expensive than transit fare might convince some commuters to make a switch.

[BenTheGreat97]

Originally Posted by JM1

Or do what Europeans do and turn downtown streets into pedestrian zones. It is not the same as having sparks street. It is about having a whole sector downtown where people must walk, bike, or use transit.

That will never happen. People are too afraid of change for that to work.

[Aylmer]

All people will always love sweeping statements.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Montreal is much more embracing of urbanity than Ottawa is. And Ottawa is behind the curve on building less crappy suburbs than many other North American cities. Maybe it's because our builders are still stuck in 1973. Or the clowncil. Or both.

Either way, Ottawa keeps undertaking these big expensive official planning exercises which talk about the need for more compact and diverse, urban, built forms... and then keeps approving more 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 suburbs.

If we are going to keep building 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 suburbs, let's stop wasting time, money, and effort on these 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 plans. Abolish the planning department and let developers build whatever 🞵🞵🞵🞵 they want: that's what happens in practice, anyway, so let's stop pretending, and spending, otherwise.

You obviously haven't lived in suburban Montreal. Trust me; ugly o plenty... Also utterly depressing.

Montreal's urban expansion predates the car revolution and thus benefited from the development of dense urban areas such as le Plateau Mont-Royal and the Mile End. Ottawa's expansion follows the car revolution. The same goes for Edmonton and Calgary although Vancouver is an exception due to geography. I don't know where else you've lived but in all my years in Montreal, the constant reminder on the news that the city was experiencing a real exodus to the burbs became annoying. The type and style of construction favored in the suburbs might be ugly, but it's certainly not exclusive to Ottawa. People are basically buying nearly the same house in the exact same kind of layout with the exact same kind of local development, whether in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, the only real difference being the price. And this has got nothing to do with our "clowcils" as you say, but rather with our addiction to the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 almighty car. And our cities still agree to these suburbs because that's what a lot of people prefer, even if there's great demand for downtown condos. I came across this interesting read which talks about canadian's love for the burbs: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canada+suburban+nation/8879988/story.html
And having good demand for suburban developments doesn't mean that intensification efforts made by city councils are a waste of time and money. Both can coexist.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by silvergate

If we really want more transit ridership and transit funding maybe we should start looking at electronic highway tolls for drivers entering downtown. A fee more expensive than transit fare might convince some commuters to make a switch.

Is downtown Ottawa sufficiently strong and attractive and does it have enough uniqueness and of a ''captive'' clientele for a congestion charge scheme to work there and not weaken the downtown instead?

[1overcosc]

It is definitely true that Montreal's newer suburbs are the worst of any of the big 6 Canadian cities. Whereas Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, and Edmonton are all building much denser subdivisions in recent years (take a drive around west Kanata or south Barrhaven sometime; there's townhouses and apartments galore) whereas Montreal is still going on with ultra low density at the edges.

Things like a return to a more linear (albeit far from gridlike) street layout, the higher densities, a focus on pedestrian infrastructure, etc, while arriving in full force in Ontario's suburbs have yet to make a splash in Montreal.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

You obviously haven't lived in suburban Montreal. Trust me; ugly o plenty... Also utterly depressing.

Most of "suburban Montreal" isn't actually in Montreal.

Montreal's urban expansion predates the car revolution and thus benefited from the development of dense urban areas such as le Plateau Mont-Royal and the Mile End. Ottawa's expansion follows the car revolution.

Not really; they have about the same proportion of pre-and post-war suburbs in their built form. Montreal, having gotten bigger earlier, obviously has more in raw terms.

And our cities still agree to these suburbs because that's what a lot of people prefer, even if there's great demand for downtown condos.

Absolutely, and FWIW, I think new suburbs will still have to be built to accomodate that car lifestyle... The problem is that we build them ONLY to accomodate that lifestyle, with no consideration for other modes of living now, or, most importantly, in the future. We build suburbs to live permanently in the 1970s, while expecting old neighbourhoods to change. That has to stop. It could stop tomorrow, but we choose not to do so. We keep approving 🞵🞵🞵🞵 suburbs, and now, with Ottawa politically dominate by 🞵🞵🞵🞵 suburbs, we will permanently keep approving 🞵🞵🞵🞵 suburbs.

And having good demand for suburban developments doesn't mean that intensification efforts made by city councils are a waste of time and money. Both can coexist.

Indeed they can. But the way 90% of post-war suburbs have been designed and legislated, and continue to be designed and legislated, they cannot intensify. Not physically. Not legally. It's stupid. It's idiotic. And it's a permanent state of affairs that will never change. It hasn't changed in more than 40 years of pretty-worded official plans, and it's never going to.

The city must change, and the suburbs must be frozen in time. That is the Ottawa ethos.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Is downtown Ottawa sufficiently strong and attractive and does it have enough uniqueness and of a ''captive'' clientele for a congestion charge scheme to work there and not weaken the downtown instead?

At this point in time, no, what with heavy government cuts and high vacancy rates downtown. Phase 2 of the LRT will hopefully be complete on time (2023), and the extension of rail to Orleans and Bayshore would actually make sense to begin implementing congestion fees, allowing users to park and ride rather than paying to drive to downtown. Though the way this city runs, I'm not sure a person could ever be elected with that in their platform.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by silvergate

At this point in time, no, what with heavy government cuts and high vacancy rates downtown. Phase 2 of the LRT will hopefully be complete on time (2023), and the extension of rail to Orleans and Bayshore would actually make sense to begin implementing congestion fees, allowing users to park and ride rather than paying to drive to downtown. Though the way this city runs, I'm not sure a person could ever be elected with that in their platform.

Instead of a "congestion charge" we might as well not have expanded the Queensway. That way, there would have been an automatic, self-regulating (albeit non-menetary) "congestion penalty" for using the highway during peak hours!

The money saved from not building road capacity would probably equal the future net revenue from a charging a fee.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Instead of a "congestion charge" we might as well not have expanded the Queensway. That way, there would have been an automatic, self-regulating (albeit non-menetary) "congestion penalty" for using the highway during peak hours!

The money saved from not building road capacity would probably equal the future net revenue from a charging a fee.

Apparently the new lame will become a bus only lane during LRT construction on the transitway. I hope it means an HOV might go in once the train is up and running.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by silvergate

I hope it means an HOV might go in once the train is up and running.

Pet Peeve.... HOV... what do these lanes actually accomplish? Other than blocking off a perfectly usable section of highway.

The basic question is - How many people choose to carpool because there is an HOV lane available? I'd be willing to bet the answer is very close to zero.