Baseline Rd. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project | Proposed

[zzptichka]

Of course slash all transit projects but keep spending hundreds of millions on absolutely unnecessary Airport, Hunt Club and AVTC.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Of course slash all transit projects but keep spending hundreds of millions on absolutely unnecessary Airport, Hunt Club and AVTC.

And the unnecessary art

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Of course slash all transit projects but keep spending hundreds of millions on absolutely unnecessary Airport, Hunt Club and AVTC.

The Airport Parkway widening has also been pushed back to 2023...

I don't think the AVTC was a wise use of funds but it is essentially finished. OC Transpo plans to start using it December 24.

[1overcosc]

As time goes on it's becoming more and more obvious that Watson's strict tax caps are starving the city of the revenue it needs to meet its obligations. 3%, or even just a return to 2.5%, would be much more realistic as an annual target.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

As time goes on it's becoming more and more obvious that Watson's strict tax caps are starving the city of the revenue it needs to meet its obligations. 3%, or even just a return to 2.5%, would be much more realistic as an annual target.

Uh.. ok. with inflation running between 1-2%, how does this scenario end?

With your model, taxes will increase faster than inflation until we have no money left.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Uh.. ok. with inflation running between 1-2%, how does this scenario end?

With your model, taxes will increase faster than inflation until we have no money left.

The percentage increase we hear about is actually the total increase in the amount drawn from the property tax base, not the increase per household. If the number of households goes up by 2%, and property tax is "increased by 2%", each household actually has the same average bill. You would expect the "increase" to be more than the rate of inflation when the population is growing.

The whole way we define "property tax increase" is wacked and creates all kinds of headaches for municipalities that senior governments don't have to worry about.

Look at the provincial sales tax, as an example. Revenue from it is increasing from $24.7 billion in 2016-17 to $26.0 billion in 2017-18 (source: https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2017/ch6b.html#t6-8). That's a 5.3% increase in sales tax revenue.. without any change in the rate, because of the combination of factors like GDP growth, inflation, and consumer spending growth. Yet you wouldn't say the province has raised sales tax by 5.3% this year.

But when it comes to property taxes, that's exactly how we define the word "increase". If we measured sales tax growth the way we measure property tax growth, a "2% increase" in provincial sales tax this year would actually mean a reduction in the sales tax rate from 8.0% to about 7.75% ($24.7 billion + 2% = $25.2 billion; and with 8% rate yielding $26.0 billion, it means each percentage points nets $3.25 billion; $25.2 billion / $3.25 billion = ~7.75%).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The percentage increase we hear about is actually the total increase in the amount drawn from the property tax base, not the increase per household. If the number of households goes up by 2%, and property tax is "increased by 2%", each household actually has the same average bill. You would expect the "increase" to be more than the rate of inflation when the population is growing.

The whole way we define "property tax increase" is wacked and creates all kinds of headaches for municipalities that senior governments don't have to worry about.

Look at the provincial sales tax, as an example. Revenue from it is increasing from $24.7 billion in 2016-17 to $26.0 billion in 2017-18 (source: https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2017/ch6b.html#t6-8). That's a 5.3% increase in sales tax revenue.. without any change in the rate, because of the combination of factors like GDP growth, inflation, and consumer spending growth. Yet you wouldn't say the province has raised sales tax by 5.3% this year.

But when it comes to property taxes, that's exactly how we define the word "increase". If we measured sales tax growth the way we measure property tax growth, a "2% increase" in provincial sales tax this year would actually mean a reduction in the sales tax rate from 8.0% to about 7.75% ($24.7 billion + 2% = $25.2 billion; and with 8% rate yielding $26.0 billion, it means each percentage points nets $3.25 billion; $25.2 billion / $3.25 billion = ~7.75%).

But this system also protects municipalities if population or property values fall. Say property values fall 10% next year, the Mayor can still go before council and say taxes are going up 2% even though the actual tax rate increase for households will be way higher.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But this system also protects municipalities if population or property values fall. Say property values fall 10% next year, the Mayor can still go before council and say taxes are going up 2% even though the actual tax rate increase for households will be way higher.

Maybe a better metric would be the "average tax increase per household." Optimally this should follow the rate of inflation.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe a better metric would be the "average tax increase per household." Optimally this should follow the rate of inflation.

Inflation is about 1.5%, so they don't seem to be having trouble keeping up.

I think the real problem is municipalities have no control over most of their expenditures. They hardly have any control over the police, no control over programs the province makes them pay for (such as welfare, social housing, long term care, etc), no control over paramedic or fire service wages or policy. They only things they can squeeze are parks/recreation, transit, roads and infrastructure.

[lrt's friend]

As I have been saying, the cost of the Confederation Line project is bleeding money from other transit improvement projects. We pretty well have only one priority with the Trillium Line being a very distant second.

[Arcologist]

Should we not be going straight to LRT along this route?

[PHrenetic]

Good Day...

yup - we should.... but this one has been going on and on for decades just for BRT (and should have been built BEFORE the Confederation line began construction, as a prime alternate E-W transit route. But that would have made WAY too much sense !

And....yeah.... I can just see and hear it - screams from BOTH the pro- AND con- Carling-first street-LRT crowds. As in - you just can't win, no matter what !

Wheeeee!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day...

yup - we should.... but this one has been going on and on for decades just for BRT (and should have been built BEFORE the Confederation line began construction, as a prime alternate E-W transit route. But that would have made WAY too much sense !

And....yeah.... I can just see and hear it - screams from BOTH the pro- AND con- Carling-first street-LRT crowds. As in - you just can't win, no matter what !

Wheeeee!

It should be a priority because it is the missing connection between the southeast and southwest Transitways and the Trillium Line for that matter.

Our priorities should be:

1. Get the Confederation Line to Bayshore and Baseline
2. Get the Trillium Line beyond the Greenbelt (because of inadequate road infrastructure surrounding the airport)
3. Build Baseline rapid transit, preferably as LRT. Do it right from the beginning. I have said this could be eventually a three prong solution, and be eventually the first prong that feeds into a Bank Street subway. The other two prongs would go to the airport and the southern suburbs.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Arcologist

Should we not be going straight to LRT along this route?

Why? The big advantage of LRT vs. BRT is capacity, assuming you make an apples to apples comparison (ex. same level of grade separation, frequency of service, etc.). I don't see the Baseline route needing that capacity for at least 30 years, if not more. Operating costs can be saved if you reduce the frequency of service, but I don't think it will be high enough to save much there without crippling the service.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

2. Get the Trillium Line beyond the Greenbelt (because of inadequate road infrastructure surrounding the airport)

I ask the same question. Why do we need LRT specifically south of Huntclub, east of the Rideau River? BRT would meet the demands for at least 30 years and would be much cheaper along that corridor.

West of the Rideau is a different story, but that would best be served by extending the Confederation line to Fallowfield and Market Stations.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Why? The big advantage of LRT vs. BRT is capacity, assuming you make an apples to apples comparison (ex. same level of grade separation, frequency of service, etc.). I don't see the Baseline route needing that capacity for at least 30 years, if not more. Operating costs can be saved if you reduce the frequency of service, but I don't think it will be high enough to save much there without crippling the service.



I ask the same question. Why do we need LRT specifically south of Huntclub, east of the Rideau River? BRT would meet the demands for at least 30 years and would be much cheaper along that corridor.

West of the Rideau is a different story, but that would best be served by extending the Confederation line to Fallowfield and Market Stations.

The reason for rail is that it is already a rail corridor going through sensitive wet land. If we build it as a Transitway, the corridor has to be wider and there will be more negative impacts because of run off of salt and other materials. I also question the cost differential when rail is running through greenfield areas. Ultimately, if we build a Bank Street subway, we will want the route to be rail from day one. No more of this massive disruption with conversion. Then there is the consideration of operating costs. Trains can move more passengers at lower cost. As ridership grows, rail becomes cheaper and cheaper to operate. Findlay Creek and Riverside South are only going to grow so there will be demand for more and more buses. And don't kid yourself, once a train station opens south of the airport with a direct road from Barrhaven, many from Barrhaven will be driving to that train station instead of busing it to Baseline.

[lrt's friend]

I will add that we still need to accommodate rail to past Lester Road anyways to meet current freight requirements.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The reason for rail is that it is already a rail corridor going through sensitive wet land. If we build it as a Transitway, the corridor has to be wider and there will be more negative impacts because of run off of salt and other materials.

As the map below shows, the wetlands only touch a very short stretch (at most 350m, more likely less than 100m) of the rail corridor just south of Del Zotto Av. It would be easy enough to mitigate issues with that.

I also question the cost differential when rail is running through greenfield areas.

If they were to use at grade rail crossings, you are probably right, but the paranoia of having at grade rail crossings in this city means that the LRT will have to be grade separated, even for roads that have low traffic volumes. The city would be much more comfortable having buses cross at grade.

Ultimately, if we build a Bank Street subway, we will want the route to be rail from day one. No more of this massive disruption with conversion.

And when is that going to happen? No one is even talking about it so it will be 30 years at least. If/when they do they will likely have to shut down the line to double track it anyway.

Then there is the consideration of operating costs. Trains can move more passengers at lower cost.

To save money, you need to run significantly fewer trains than you would buses. From day 1, we will have as many (if not more) trains running a day as buses currently run, so operational costs will go up.

As ridership grows, rail becomes cheaper and cheaper to operate. Findlay Creek and Riverside South are only going to grow so there will be demand for more and more buses.

They will grow, but even if the current growth rate of 3% is maintained (which I doubt), it will take 24 years for the population to double.

And don't kid yourself, once a train station opens south of the airport with a direct road from Barrhaven, many from Barrhaven will be driving to that train station instead of busing it to Baseline.

Maybe, but far more would use a train from Fallowfiled or Marketplace stations, so that should be a higher priority. Extending the Trillium line south will only delay this extension as ridership on the Trillium line would take a hit once the extension opens.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I will add that we still need to accommodate rail to past Lester Road anyways to meet current freight requirements.

Freight requirements? I assume you mean occasionally sending rail vehicles to the NRC Automotive and Surface Transportation facility for testing? AFAIK, they are the only ones who use that line.

[lrt's friend]

The wetland is more extensive than shown. Much of the area surrounding Albion Road and Lester Road is wetland.

I am not sure why double tracking would shut down the line other than for brief periods, at least south of Greenboro. Railways do this all the time. The current part of the Trillium Line is a different story with the complexity of bridges, underpasses, tunnels and rock cuts.

Findlay Creek and Riverside South are about to explode as did Barrhaven in recent years. The area is choking on traffic.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Findlay Creek and Riverside South are about to explode as did Barrhaven in recent years.

What makes you think they are about to explode the way Barrhaven did? Barrhaven went from being a sleepy bedroom community with practically no services (only the Barrhaven Mall and one tiny restaurant), no employment nodes and didn't even have its own high school, to becoming a full fledged community with lots or retail and restaurants, employment nodes and its own high school within a few short years. That made it a much more attractive place to live.

[AndyMEng]

Speaking of grade separation. Look at this crazyness in Basel, Switzerland! "Won't somebody pleaaaase think of the children!!?!"

https://gerryotrickcyclist2.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/p1040596.jpg

Originally Posted by roger1818

As the map below shows, the wetlands only touch a very short stretch (at most 350m, more likely less than 100m) of the rail corridor just south of Del Zotto Av. It would be easy enough to mitigate issues with that.





If they were to use at grade rail crossings, you are probably right, but the paranoia of having at grade rail crossings in this city means that the LRT will have to be grade separated, even for roads that have low traffic volumes. The city would be much more comfortable having buses cross at grade.



And when is that going to happen? No one is even talking about it so it will be 30 years at least. If/when they do they will likely have to shut down the line to double track it anyway.



To save money, you need to run significantly fewer trains than you would buses. From day 1, we will have as many (if not more) trains running a day as buses currently run, so operational costs will go up.



They will grow, but even if the current growth rate of 3% is maintained (which I doubt), it will take 24 years for the population to double.



Maybe, but far more would use a train from Fallowfiled or Marketplace stations, so that should be a higher priority. Extending the Trillium line south will only delay this extension as ridership on the Trillium line would take a hit once the extension opens.



Freight requirements? I assume you mean occasionally sending rail vehicles to the NRC Automotive and Surface Transportation facility for testing? AFAIK, they are the only ones who use that line.