Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yes people will be induced to take the bus, but that doesn't mean that they won't live in compact developments around stations.

Around stations yes. But bus stops don't tend to be stations with high density nodes around them.

And do we really need literature here? How much dense development is there in the communities we are talking about?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Around stations yes. But bus stops don't tend to be stations with high density nodes around them.

And do we really need literature here? How much dense development is there in the communities we are talking about?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that GO has a good track record of transit oriented development, and the types of stops they build at the sides of highways are not likely to attract dense development. I was more thinking of decent service originating in town centres like Kemptville or Rockland that could make living close by an attractive proposition.

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Compare the Golden Horseshoe to the Lower Mainland and you'll see the difference here.

I totally agree that more needs to be done against sprawl, but you can't really compare the Lower Mainland with the Golden Horseshoe, since Vancouver is stuck between the sea, mountains and the US border, which forces them to control sprawl to some degree. They do have a commuter train from Mission, east of Vancouver and several satellite cities in the area, like Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack, similar to Barrie and Oshawa in the Golden Horseshoe.

To be cynical, odds are pretty good that not developing transit in satellite cities would have only resulted in even more car centric-cities, like in the US, since people in North America have an obsession with suburban mcmansions and I doubt that offering less transit in satellite cities would change the culture of a whole continent. People would probably just drive instead. We just have to look at my hometown of Lévis, south of Québec City, which has abysmal public transit and yet sprawl is still out of control, even worse than here in Ottawa.

I totally agree that the city of Ottawa shouldn't pay anything for transit in surrounding cities. I think that toll roads would be a better tool against sprawl (and a way to fund suburban transit), but just bringing the idea would be political suicide, so we can forget about it.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that GO has a good track record of transit oriented development, and the types of stops they build at the sides of highways are not likely to attract dense development. I was more thinking of decent service originating in town centres like Kemptville or Rockland that could make living close by an attractive proposition.

For starters both history and current GO design for this style of commuter transit has it based around park and ride not "15 minute neighborhood"

Secondly, people who are choosing that kind of commute are not looking for higher density housing, there looking at SFH with low cost/sqft and a large lot.

Last, there is no last mile transit. None of these towns have local transit meaning the only way these systems can get enough riders and service locals is by building park and rides..

[acottawa]

Neither provincial party seems interested in curbing exurban sprawl in Eastern Ontario, and I suspect the pandemic will accelerate this process. I am sure at some point a commuter bus service into the exurbs will be necessary. I don't think we are at that point for a while though.

In the shorter term, if Greyhound permanently cancels some of its Southern Ontario routes, I think the province should look to fill the gap (Ontario Southland). You should be able to get from Cornwall to Ottawa on some sort of public carriage without having to transfer in Kingston or Montreal.

In neither case do I think rail-bus transfers would be a major thing unless a policy decision is made by Via to encourage such transfers. A bus-to-bus transfer makes more sense, both in terms of cost and timing.

Incidentally, I notice Ontario Northland already has the Via station as a request stop.

[phil235]

[QUOTE=Williamoforange;9235139][QUOTE]For starters both history and current GO design for this style of commuter transit has it based around park and ride not "15 minute neighborhood"[QUOTE]

Metrolinx has a transit-oriented communities program that aims to change all of that.

Secondly, people who are choosing that kind of commute are not looking for higher density housing, there looking at SFH with low cost/sqft and a large lot.

I'd be careful about making sweeping generalizations like this. People choose smaller towns for lots of reasons - work, family, they simply prefer small towns. Towns with decent mainstreets and development patterns originating in the early part of the 20th century (like Carelton Place or Arnprior) have lots of potential as 15-minute communities, and offer a good and cheaper alternative to their urban counterparts.

Last, there is no last mile transit. None of these towns have local transit meaning the only way these systems can get enough riders and service locals is by building park and rides.

Fortunately these things are not mutually exclusive. You can put a transit station in the middle of these towns and include parking for people coming from farther afield.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Fortunately these things are not mutually exclusive. You can put a transit station in the middle of these towns and include parking for people coming from farther afield.

They are pretty mutually exclusive. A commuter parking lot in the middle of town is pretty disruptive.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

Fortunately these things are not mutually exclusive. You can put a transit station in the middle of these towns and include parking for people coming from farther afield.

And people wonder why I'm worried about sprawl....

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Incidentally, I notice Ontario Northland already has the Via station as a request stop.

Really seems like Northland is best positioned to become the provincial bus operator.

I would argue too that intercity buses are really only needed in Eastern and Northern Ontario. VIA does well connecting Southern Ontario.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Really seems like Northland is best positioned to become the provincial bus operator.

I would argue too that intercity buses are really only needed in Eastern and Northern Ontario. VIA does well connecting Southern Ontario.

It is hard to get between the Via corridors (e.g. Hamilton to Waterloo region) without a transfer in London or Toronto. The Barrie-Owen Sound corridor seems like another possible area.

[lrt's friend]

If we examine what is happening in other parts of Ontario, exurban transit is being implemented and all day service is being provided. Some of the towns being served are smaller than those around Ottawa. For example, there are urban transit systems in Barrie and Orillia but the county has in the last few years been implementing a regional system connecting both cities, and smaller towns such as Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Midland, Penetanguishene and others. Five regional bus routes are now running with a sixth to open soon. Two new regional routes are about to be inaugurated in the Peterborough area. As for-profit bus operators exit the market, municipalities are filling in the void. The problem in Ottawa, is that more than one municipality is involved, but that is no excuse for inaction. But the problem is worse than that, because we cannot even implement transit service to rural communities within the city limits. It seems that Ottawa has become frozen, too small for a GO Transit type service, too big for regional county service offered elsewhere in the province. We need a provincially mandated regional operator to deal with the cross-boundary municipal issues to facilitate transit service beyond the urban transit area both within the city boundaries and outside.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They are pretty mutually exclusive. A commuter parking lot in the middle of town is pretty disruptive.

Sure, but it doesn't need to be surface parking. There are lots of examples all over the world where transit stations are successfully integrated into town centres. By drawing people, they contribute to the economic health of the town centre.

Not sure what the alternative is. Transit stations are always going to have parking in outlying areas. I'd rather see them integrated into town centres than have built at the side of highways.

This idea that transit begets sprawl is very bizzare to me. The alternative is having all of these people from outlying areas drive into the city to work. Even if they all go to terminus stations, it still means a lot more more car miles and a lot fewer transit miles.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is hard to get between the Via corridors (e.g. Hamilton to Waterloo region) without a transfer in London or Toronto. The Barrie-Owen Sound corridor seems like another possible area.

Exactly. I'm from that area originally, and I can assure you that Via is pretty much useless for travel within that region. Service is extremely sporadic and a trip from Kitchener to Hamilton would take about 5 hours. No one does it, ever.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hardly. I don't want to subsidize them.

Good thing no one is suggesting that. It is just your go to strawman argument.

Nor do I want their buses downtown making our traffic situation worse. And a big part of that consideration is the slippery slope. If you're getting a one-seat ride from Arnprior and more square footage, why would you buy in Stittsville? I don't want to see these places grow to 100k and the whole region ending up choking on traffic. Because that is exactly what will happen given our inability to build anything by car-dependent sprawl (especially the case in all these exurbs, which is often their selling feature).

I don't buy the argument that commuter buses will make traffic downtown worse. The key is to significantly reduce the number of cars downtown, not buses. The single seat ride argument is also weak if transfer frequencies are high enough.

Let's be clear. People aren't moving to Renfrew, Embrun, Navan, Smiths Falls, etc because they want cheap housing. They aren't buying condos out there. They are buying houses out there. So effectively, what's being asked here is that we facilitate transit improvements for them, so that they can get more square footage for their $. They can easily spend the same amount in the coverage area of OC Transpo. They might not get the same square footage and acreage though. And this is before we get into the fact that you seem to have this strange idea that affordable housing is equal to lower cost home ownership. Apparently the idea that we should direct policy toward renters in the city over exurban home owners is beyond you.

Why do you hold community numbing, high-rise condos in such high esteem? They are as much of a blight as sprawling mansion growth would be.

Having said all that, with the high cost of housing, we are starting to see today (compared to even a decade ago) increased density in the suburbs and exurbs with more and more duplexes and townhomes being built and the singles that are being built are smaller than they were. I would like to start to see triplexes and low rise apartments being built though.

But it is. Specifically, offloading the externality caused by their bus traffic.

Do you beleive that you have physic powers, and can know the intentions of others, or are you just making assumptions about their intentions?

Let's be clear. I didn't say anything about banning all buses from the core. Just those ex-urban commuter buses.

So you would rather see those ex-urban commuters driving their cars downtown, or would you rather use your property tax dollars to subsidize their use of OC Transpo? You can't have it all.

Where did I say no subsidies for transit at all? I just said no subsidies for transit services to those who don't live in the city and pay taxes here.

You said:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'd prefer not to provide any subsidies at all. And simply put in all kinds of bylaws making transit service to the core challenging enough to compel them to terminate at the rail network end points. But people might consider that a bit hostile.

Maybe you intended for there to be conditions on that statement, but you didn't include them.

If the Government of Ontario provides it? Fine. If we have to spend a few thousand putting in bus bays and a bus shelter or two at each of the terminii, sure. But that should be where it ends.

For now that would be adequate, but there is wisdom in planning for the future.

[lrt's friend]

Meanwhile, we keep adding lanes to the highways to serve exurban drivers. Which is really inducing sprawl more?

The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society where market forces are setting housing prices, the location and type of housing and also the location of jobs.

I would say that we cannot and should not control the housing market too much. The government is going to screw it up. I don't want to live in a city where strict controls result in a large portion of the population living in low quality high rises. We have seen this in 'projects' in American cities and in communist countries. This should never be our goal.

Transit reacts to reality and will always be subsidized by the taxpayer, just as roads are fully subsidized by the taxpayer. Building a toll ring around the city without a transit alternative is an extreme response, and restricts the urban population as much as exurbans. I don't want to live in an urban prison.

The idea of a bus free downtown is a ridiculous goal. The small number of exurban commuter buses will have negligible impact on traffic. If it ever became a problem, we will need to be thinking of commuter rail service.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Meanwhile, we keep adding lanes to the highways to serve exurban drivers. Which is really inducing sprawl more?

And plenty of us called that out too. It's not like people are advocating for highway expansion as an alternative.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society where market forces are setting housing prices, the location and type of housing and also the location of jobs.

Your freedom should not translate into an externality that the rest of us have to fund.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would say that we cannot and should not control the housing market too much. The government is going to screw it up. I don't want to live in a city where strict controls result in a large portion of the population living in low quality high rises. We have seen this in 'projects' in American cities and in communist countries. This should never be our goal.

How much time do you spend on QAnon forums? Because that is what this nonsense reads like.

You think the alternative is everybody living in projects?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Transit reacts to reality and will always be subsidized by the taxpayer, just as roads are fully subsidized by the taxpayer.

The question is which taxpayer..

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The idea of a bus free downtown is a ridiculous goal.

Nobody advocated for that.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The small number of exurban commuter buses will have negligible impact on traffic. If it ever became a problem, we will need to be thinking of commuter rail service.

So it's a small number. But you hope that it will grow big enough to support rail service. How exactly would it remain a small number then?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Good thing no one is suggesting that. It is just your go to strawman argument.

When there's people talking about building a bus terminal for them in the core, somebody is subsidizing them. So hardly a strawman.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't buy the argument that commuter buses will make traffic downtown worse. The key is to significantly reduce the number of cars downtown, not buses.

We're going to fail at reducing cars or buses in the core if we add hundreds of thousands of residents to these exurban communities. For the simple reason that they will never have 100% transit modal share to the core. And if they did, we'd end up with higher bus traffic from these rural buses still.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The single seat ride argument is also weak if transfer frequencies are high enough.

Why would transfer frequencies be high if they are getting single seat rides to the core? They are going to get better service than folks from Orleans, Kanata, Stittsville, Barrhaven, Nepean, etc.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Why do you hold community numbing, high-rise condos in such high esteem? They are as much of a blight as sprawling mansion growth would be.

Who said I did? I just gave you a video lamenting the lack of Missing Middle developments and you jump to this strawman?

I guess it's really hard for you to just admit that people move to these towns for cheaper square footage and acreage. And that it's not actually about lower cost of housing. Again, show me who is moving to Arnprior or Navan to live in a townhouse or even a semi, or because they want cheaper rent than Ottawa.

I should ask why you advocate so much for the hollowing out of the city?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Having said all that, with the high cost of housing, we are starting to see today (compared to even a decade ago) increased density in the suburbs and exurbs with more and more duplexes and townhomes being built and the singles that are being built are smaller than they were. I would like to start to see triplexes and low rise apartments being built though.

Now you've gotten to mixing up suburbs and exurbs. While Ottawa has imposed much tighter zoning on suburbs, it has no control over those exurbs. We should be striving to develop enough of our suburbs to house all that growth within 20-30km of downtown. Not jumping right to discussions about how to facilitate easier 50 km commutes.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Do you beleive that you have physic powers, and can know the intentions of others, or are you just making assumptions about their intentions?

What does an externality have to do with reading minds? You live in the boonies and take a rural bus to work? You are contributing to traffic, sprawl and environmental degradation. Those are facts. You can debate how much we should weigh those facts or regulate against them. But that doesn't change reality.

Originally Posted by roger1818

So you would rather see those ex-urban commuters driving their cars downtown, or would you rather use your property tax dollars to subsidize their use of OC Transpo? You can't have it all.

Frankly? I'm okay with them driving. It's expensive and tiring for them. Which should at least discourage some of it. And we can add further disincentives by taxing parking spots in the downtown core too or adding congestion charges, we should pursue that. The more expensive and inconvenient it is for them to engage in sprawl the better.

Originally Posted by roger1818

For now that would be adequate, but there is wisdom in planning for the future.

Indeed. Which is why it's even further madness, with all that we know about sprawl, climate change, etc. to advocate for a future where we require regional buses to the core and even a rail network apparently.

[Truenorth00]

On topic, the feds have actually announced funding for rural buses:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/dedi...says-1.5366169

Guess the sprawl advocates should hit them up for $$$.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would say that we cannot and should not control the housing market too much. The government is going to screw it up. I don't want to live in a city where strict controls result in a large portion of the population living in low quality high rises. We have seen this in 'projects' in American cities and in communist countries. This should never be our goal.

Transit reacts to reality and will always be subsidized by the taxpayer, just as roads are fully subsidized by the taxpayer. Building a toll ring around the city without a transit alternative is an extreme response, and restricts the urban population as much as exurbans. I don't want to live in an urban prison.

The idea of a bus free downtown is a ridiculous goal. The small number of exurban commuter buses will have negligible impact on traffic. If it ever became a problem, we will need to be thinking of commuter rail service.

What an absolutely misguided comment. I think you lack some knowledge on how cities function. You look at the city from a very small town/country point of view. Can I assume you aren't from the city?

1) "low quality high rises"? You do realize that modern high rises are built to high standards and inspected throughout construction. Meanwhile SFH are quickly thrown together using dated construction techniques, cheap low-end materials, and chainsaw precision. If anything is low quality it is the modern cookie cutter SFH.

2) Governments should 100% step in and regulate the housing market. The government will screw it up? Look what private business has done. We are in a national housing crisis. We shouldn't just be allowed to build whatever we want, wherever we want. Look at what that has done to some American cities that are sprawling out indefinitely.

3) Why do you equate living in a high rise with living in the "projects". You do realize wealthy people around the world live in high rises, even here in Ottawa. Your idea of living in a poorly built SFH outside of the city = wealth is very backwards. It seems you have drank the suburban-dream marketing koolaid.

4) We should be tolling highways and making urban transit free. We should not be awarding people from buying cheap suburban/exurban homes and commuting. If you want to live 50 miles outside the city and think of city living as "an urban prison" then maybe the city isn't for you. Perhaps you'd be better suited to a Cornwall, kingston, or Peterborough, where you can more easily live a country lifestyle.

It's well documented that the modern suburbs were the biggest misallocation of resources in world history. They have destroyed the prosperity cities across North America. If it wasn't for urban tax payers subsidizing your suburban/exurban lifestyle you would be paying astronomical property taxes. This is a trend that cannot continue and governments are finally beginning to come to this reality. If you think Ottawa is too urban now, just wait. It needs to get way more urban and strictly regulate suburban growth/SFH construction.

But this discussion has gotten way off topic.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

On topic, the feds have actually announced funding for rural buses:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/dedi...says-1.5366169

Guess the sprawl advocates should hit them up for $$$.

It depends how it is used. If it is bus services for rural areas then I think that could be positive if it is reasonably cost effective. If it is exurban commuter lines then not so much.