Rural Commuter Rail

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Another huge issue is how are they going to get urban-scale sewage and water treatment out to these remote communities? Most people are on septic tanks and wells out there. There will be an environmental price to provide this most basic need (which is far more important than transit), and definitely will cost the taxpayer something no matter what.

The advantage to densification and concentration of our urban activities is the limiting of our environmental footprint while controlling the cost of service distribution. This scheme is completely opposite.

As a person from a village outside Ottawa I find your assumptions of our qualities of living to be insulting. People living in rural villages are not living in a third world. These places can grow no problem (and are for the most part).

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Also, if you look at the occupied land, it is largely covered by single family homes, even in Centre Town. The opportunities for intensification are huge. It doesn't make sense to encourage sprawl when there are so many single family homes within 2km of Parliament Hill. As a result we can push that 500,000 limit greatly.

People on this forum, being a statistically biased set, often forget that not all people want to live in dense high-rise neighborhoods. There is only so much intensification you can do. In any case you can't fit that many people on Lebretton flats, maybe a few 10,000.

Right now the inner-greenbelt population is about 550,000 people. I'd say Greber's estimate was pretty accurate. In the future most of the population growth will occur outside the greenbelt:

http://ottawa.ca/en/node/1009708

This is why places like Orléans (which was a small village not so long ago) are not huge and the same thing is happening to Rockland. I firmly believe that we should allow development inside the greenbelt along the rapid transit corridors for this reason.

But hey, people and people, and even then people will still want to live in rural areas and not providing these people with transit options is an oversight. The city of Ottawa won't do it since it's not their land and the provincial government won't do it since metro Ottawa is over two provinces (plus Ontario would never fund rural rail outside the golden horseshoe). This is our best bet.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

As a person from a village outside Ottawa I find your assumptions of our qualities of living to be insulting. People living in rural villages are not living in a third world. These places can grow no problem (and are for the most part).

A little touchy, aren't you? Almost everyone outside the urban boundary is on well water and septic tanks, how can you even construe that as an insult?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

The inner greenbelt was intended for 500,000 people. Ottawa has well overgrown it which is why places like Kanata and Orléans exist. Go in google earth, type Ottawa greenbelt and it will show you an outline of its borders. The inner city is practically 100% occupied except for the experimental farm.

The inner city is also woefully under-dense, as are the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 suburbs beyond the Brown Belt.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If we're going to tolerate sprawl, I want zoned fares for transit (goes for MOOSE too) and congestion charges for central Ottawa to make up for the costs the are passing on to the taxpayer.

And taxes and fees that reflect the true cost of building and maintaining that sprawl in the first place: if someone thinks it's their right to live in a land-, energy-, and resource-wasteful suburban development, then it should also be their responsibility to pay the freight.

As it stands, business and inner-urban residential taxpayers are subsidizing suburban sprawl. Unsurprisingly, that means we keep getting more suburban sprawl. You get what you subsidize.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

People on this forum, being a statistically biased set, often forget that not all people want to live in dense high-rise neighborhoods.

And developers ALWAYS forget that there's a market of people, who they absolutely refuse to serve, who would love to live in a more affordable version of a trendy, traditional-style pre-war neighbourhood... but no one will build that way, even though the city's official plan calls for more of it, instead of the suburban 🞵🞵🞵🞵 we keep getting around the margins of the city.

You can still build new suburban-style neighbourhoods in a way that will allow them to evolve over time, just as old, 19th-century and pre-War neighbourhoods have. But that's not what we get: we are stuck building suburbs whose form is topologically identical to those that were built in the 1950s. And not only building them, but subsidizing the hell out of them.

There is only so much intensification you can do.

Inner Ottawa is centuries away from reaching the ceiling of what intensification it can bear.

Right now the inner-greenbelt population is about 550,000 people. I'd say Greber's estimate was pretty accurate. In the future most of the population growth will occur outside the greenbelt:

I wouldn't assume that, actually. Large swaths of traditional North American suburbs are about to start falling off demographic cliffs.

This is why places like Orléans (which was a small village not so long ago) are not huge and the same thing is happening to Rockland. I firmly believe that we should allow development inside the greenbelt along the rapid transit corridors for this reason.

Even more to the point: outside the greenbelt along rapid transit corridors, since that's the only place we'll be building any new rapid transit corridors after Phase I LRT opens, for a very long time to come.

And if those suburban communities don't want physical and economic changes to their neighbourhoods as a result of LRT or even BRT extensions, then they shouldn't get them. Spend that money improving transit in transit-supportive neighbourhoods in the core, which are being left out of the medium- and even long-term transit plan.

But hey, people and people, and even then people will still want to live in rural areas and not providing these people with transit options is an oversight.

Also an oversight: not building mass urban transit in urban areas.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

But hey, people and people, and even then people will still want to live in rural areas and not providing these people with transit options is an oversight. The city of Ottawa won't do it since it's not their land and the provincial government won't do it since metro Ottawa is over two provinces (plus Ontario would never fund rural rail outside the golden horseshoe). This is our best bet.

But this isn't really rail to rural communities (that won't be able to afford to set up one of these station corporations), it is rail to subdivisions in rural townships, whatever features of rural communities that currently attract people there will not be true of these developments.

[OtrainUser]

I forgot who made the post about the greenbelt but Greber's main intention of the greenbelt was to prevent urban sprawl and it has failed miserably. The Greenbelt actually made things worse by forcing the urban sprawl to be further away from the downtown core which makes upkeep on roads and transportation more expensive.

What Ottawa-Gatineau needs in more urban densification and that will make city finances healthier.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I forgot who made the post about the greenbelt but Greber's main intention of the greenbelt was to prevent urban sprawl and it has failed miserably. The Greenbelt actually made things worse by forcing the urban sprawl to be further away from the downtown core which makes upkeep on roads and transportation more expensive.

What Ottawa-Gatineau needs in more urban densification and that will make city finances healthier.

I could argue that the Greenbelt will increasingly define the urban/suburban divide, and is actually spurring the densification within because many people do not want to commute across the Greenbelt. Remove that now and it can undermine the redevelopment of core.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I could argue that the Greenbelt will increasingly define the urban/suburban divide, and is actually spurring the densification within because many people do not want to commute across the Greenbelt. Remove that now and it can undermine the redevelopment of core.

Your arguement fails because we have the greenbelt for a long time and all we see is more development outside the greenbelt than inside.

[lrt's friend]

The best way to fix a problem is to avoid it in the first place. Create policies that discourage ex-urban/rural growth and you won't have much of an issue to begin with. Ottawa has plenty of room left for housing growth in its suburbs. This isn't Toronto where the average single family detached is going for a million inside the 416. So what exactly is the pressing need to facilitate growth at these outlying parts?

You cannot do this. Neighbouring municipalities are not going to discourage development when they are already struggling to keep a viable economic base. And we have already let the cat out the bag as a result of building highways through these municipalities. If we don't respond with a more efficient transport model at some point, Ottawa will be flooded with traffic.

Nevertheless, this was not the point of my comment. We are not delivering rapid transit to our own surburbs even with development controls. The result is we are developing our suburbs with a car first mentality which automatically limits density and wastes land to accommodate all the cars.

We cannot impose limitless controls to force people to live in high rise condos. This is not democratic and will automatically lead to $1M+ house prices simply because building up always costs more, and this kind of limits will increase the cost of land. Costs always go up when supply is being limited. We are probably already increasing the cost of land based on the current land development limitations, which in the end pushes people to exurbs and rural areas.

Sorry, but the housing market is very complex and we should avoid excessive amounts of intervention for fear of really negative consequences.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Your arguement fails because we have the greenbelt for a long time and all we see is more development outside the greenbelt than inside.

The reason behind that was that prior to 2000, what Ottawa is now was made up of 11 municipalities, each vying for residents to increase their tax base. Within the Greenbelt was the original city of Ottawa as well as half of Nepean and half of Gloucester. The failure was not of the Greenbelt, it was with regional (RMOC) planning.

At any rate, the higher density redevelopment is still mostly within the Greenbelt.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The reason behind that was that prior to 2000, what Ottawa is now was made up of 11 municipalities, each vying for residents to increase their tax base. Within the Greenbelt was the original city of Ottawa as well as half of Nepean and half of Gloucester. The failure was not of the Greenbelt, it was with regional (RMOC) planning.

At any rate, the higher density redevelopment is still mostly within the Greenbelt.

The only part of the bold comment that is true is based on the word 'redevelopment'. Unfortunately, redevelopment mostly occurs only when buildings reach the end of their life cycle. Most development outside the Greenbelt has not reached that point and won't for many years. However, when you compare 1950s and 1960s development inside the Greenbelt, density is usually lower than new development taking place outside the Greenbelt but within the urban boundary.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Sorry, but the housing market is very complex and we should avoid excessive amounts of intervention for fear of really negative consequences.

The single biggest "interventions" in the housing and real-property marketplaces are land-use restrictions (segregated uses, zoning, esp. for single-detached), and street layouts that prevent neighbourhoods from ever evolving.

That's a good chunk of why housing has become so unaffordable in Toronto, Vancouver, and to a lesser degree other cities: the city's own policies and laws artificially restrict the ability of people to add density and have more people sharing a limited amount of space.

And yes, it's expensive to go up in absolute terms, but on a per-unit basis, living in something denser quickly becomes attractive once your stupid politics force detached single-family homes into the seven-figure price range.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The only part of the bold comment that is true is based on the word 'redevelopment'. Unfortunately, redevelopment mostly occurs only when buildings reach the end of their life cycle.

Or when it becomes economically desireable, and permissible, for the incumbent property owner to either redevelop, or sell to someone else to do so.

Most development outside the Greenbelt has not reached that point and won't for many years. However, when you compare 1950s and 1960s development inside the Greenbelt, density is usually lower than new development taking place outside the Greenbelt but within the urban boundary.

That's a relatively new phenomonon - maybe the past 15 years or so. But those new "denser" developments are still limited in their ability to evolve over time, because we insist on still building such new housing, however dense it might be, on street layouts that prevent the neighbourhood from ever changing.

We need to stop doing that, and we need to stop rubber-stamping it whenever that's all the developers propose to build.

[Truenorth00]

@Joseph Potvin

You can have all sorts of codes. How many will apply outside your 2km^2 station vicinity is debatable. I highly doubt the towns in question will adopt any sort of densification standards because they want to capture the residents who will move there specifically because of the open space. My absolute best case scenario is only moderate density near your stations. I assume the rest will all be sprawl. It won't be Ottawa McMansion sprawl. You're right about that. It'll all be 1 acre lots.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

People on this forum, being a statistically biased set, often forget that not all people want to live in dense high-rise neighborhoods.

I suggest you travel to Europe or most of Asia. Lots of density with very few high rises. The high rise density thing is largely a nouveau-riche urbanism and North American concept. In most of the world, they achieve density quite simply through smaller detached homes, townhomes, and low rise apartment buildings. That is what most great cities should be pushing. Admittedly, Ottawa isn't great at this....

This is the Viennese suburb where my relatives stay:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.0915597,16.2951791,750m/data=!3m1!1e3

Feel free to use streetview. Tell me how many high rises you see there. Still a hell of a lot denser than most of Ottawa.

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Right now the inner-greenbelt population is about 550,000 people. I'd say Greber's estimate was pretty accurate.

Accurate perhaps. But I question why his logic should hold today given what we know about climate change, energy usage and most importantly the massive infrastructure costs associated with the suburban lifestyle. At minimum, I'd be less opposed to sprawl if I wasn't paying for it.

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

In the future most of the population growth will occur outside the greenbelt:

http://ottawa.ca/en/node/1009708

A mistake that Ottawa ratepayers will be paying for, starting in 2050.....

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

This is why places like Orléans (which was a small village not so long ago) are not huge and the same thing is happening to Rockland. I firmly believe that we should allow development inside the greenbelt along the rapid transit corridors for this reason.

What development is being prohibited along rapid transit corridors inside the greenbelt?

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

But hey, people and people, and even then people will still want to live in rural areas and not providing these people with transit options is an oversight.

Provide the services. Make them pay the full cost of it. That's what we are arguing here. I question how many people would live out there if that lifestyle wasn't so heavily subsidized.

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

The city of Ottawa won't do it since it's not their land

You want the City of Ottawa to provide services to people who don't pay the City taxes? Why? Let those towns set up their own transit services and pay for it with their own tax base.

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

...and the provincial government won't do it since metro Ottawa is over two provinces (plus Ontario would never fund rural rail outside the golden horseshoe). This is our best bet.

The province won't do it because they know the business case is utterly ridiculous. Unlike Mr. Potvin, Queen's Park can't capture revenue from areas surrounding the stations. At least that has not been the norm till now.

Moreover, the Province is very concerned about sprawl. There's now rumours of a Places to Grow Act for Eastern Ontario.

[FFX-ME]

There is something called the tragedy of the commons. Basically it states that individuals will always do what benefits them at the detriment of the rest of society.

In this case, although most people like the idea of living in dense neighborhoods with transit and be more European, people take actions that go against this. Most people want detached homes with a lawn and a calm, safe, neighborhood. Someone mentioned that the city isn't doing enough for those that want trendy dense neighborhoods but look at the sheer number of condo developments like Zibi. Not enough people are buying. Some people are, but with respect to the whole of the metro, most people don't want to live in these sorts of neighborhoods.

You can imagine whatever utopia you like were everyone lives densely like Vienna or Manhattan but people are individuals, not sheep, and they will buy the house they want, and builders will give the people what they want. People moving to the suburbs and rural areas is inevitable. If you truly care about transit and climate change then giving these people transportation options is the solution since you'll never manage to get them into the city.

[Truenorth00]

@FEX-Me

I see we've reached the Trumpian stage of the debate where facts and context go out the window.

We all know why Zibi may not be selling as well (and I doubt that's really that true either but I'll indulge you). It doesn't have anything to do at all people not wanting an urban lifestyle. I suggest you look at their price list....

Most people want detached homes with a lawn and a calm, safe, neighborhood.

Do you really think that people living in other denser areas of the world don't have this? Or are you just someone who believes this isn't possible without a half acre separating you and your neighbour?

You can imagine whatever utopia you like were everyone lives densely like Vienna or Manhattan but people are individuals, not sheep, and they will buy the house they want, and builders will give the people what they want.

They can buy whatever they want. I just don't believe that I should be subsidizing their lifestyle. And thankfully, I think most Ottawa taxpayers are going to join me on this if their taxes start going up to subsidize rural sprawl. And that's if Queen's Park doesn't kill rural growth first. It hurts their balance sheets more than the City.

People moving to the suburbs and rural areas is inevitable.

Indeed. Which is why we need to start talking about how to make them pay full freight. I think Ottawa should start talking about congestion charges. At least OC Transpo recognized reality when they charged rural fares.

If you truly care about transit and climate change then giving these people transportation options is the solution since you'll never manage to get them into the city.

If we truly cared about climate change, we'd make it damn near impossible to pave over farmland like they do in Europe. I am settling for making them pay their fair share.

Again, no issues providing them transit. As long as we adopt fare by distance. Have a look at how much GO charges you if you want to go from Kitchener or Barrie to Union:

http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/en/fares/farecalculator.aspx

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Unlike Mr. Potvin, Queen's Park can't capture revenue from areas surrounding the stations. At least that has not been the norm till now.

Yes they can, and they do. Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act is the primary revenue capture method used by Toronto and Ottawa in the areas near rail transit stations. I would say it not a very elegant method, but it's significant.
http://torontoist.com/2016/09/torontoist-explains-the-uses-and-misuses-of-section-37/

It's better than LA at least. There, the costs of the Los Angeles Metro Rail were spread amongst taxpayers, but the entirety of the property value increment was left as windfall gains to propertied interests near the stations.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com