Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

But I also think that pricing people out of the suburbs is a terrible strategy. If you start tolling roads, and increasing the costs of living in the suburbs, you aren't going to push that many people into the city, you are only going to make their life more expensive, and a bit more unaffordable.

The solution is simple then. Use the revenue from toll roads and high land taxes outside the greenbelt to subsidize urban housing, and also construct new apartments and townhouses on the acres of pavement.

Parking and zoning laws need to be changed to make cities less car-dependent. I just don't understand the logic of people that are okay walking half a kilometre to and from their parking spot to Costco but object to walking maybe half that distance to and from the local bus stops.

[CityTech]

According to yesterday's update we are now up to 28 trains with final certification.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Parking and zoning laws need to be changed to make cities less car-dependent. I just don't understand the logic of people that are okay walking half a kilometre to and from their parking spot to Costco but object to walking maybe half that distance to and from the local bus stops.

First, eliminating subsidies on the suburbs and car-oriented infrastructure. Imagine if you charged each ward for their infrastructure renewal and maintenance projects. You'd quickly see how dependent the suburbs are on the tax-efficient dense urban neighbourhoods.

Make the tax rate for parking lots higher instead of less. Higher street parking rates. There are so many externalities that the suburbs don't pay the true cost of.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

First, eliminating subsidies on the suburbs and car-oriented infrastructure. Imagine if you charged each ward for their infrastructure renewal and maintenance projects. You'd quickly see how dependent the suburbs are on the tax-efficient dense urban neighbourhoods.

Make the tax rate for parking lots higher instead of less. Higher street parking rates. There are so many externalities that the suburbs don't pay the true cost of.

Do you really think the tax base for Centretown Ward alone can afford the reconstruction of Elgin Street, Queen Street and soon Bay Street and Albert/Slater (Empress to Bay)? It doesn't work that way. The City brings in tens of thousands in development charges from EACH new unit being built. So new housing starts are an extremely important source of revenue.

Parking rates should be raised - that makes sense to me. Take transit, pay more for parking, or don't go - it's a personal choice.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by hwy418

Do you really think the tax base for Centretown Ward alone can afford the reconstruction of Elgin Street, Queen Street and soon Bay Street and Albert/Slater (Empress to Bay)? It doesn't work that way. The City brings in tens of thousands in development charges from EACH new unit being built. So new housing starts are an extremely important source of revenue.

Parking rates should be raised - that makes sense to me. Take transit, pay more for parking, or don't go - it's a personal choice.

Yup. 320 condo units at Claridge Icon bring about the same in development charges as a giant block of ~200 new single homes somewhere in Kanata. Now compare their footprints and the fact that most infrastructure on Carling is already there and guess what percentage of those development charges we are left with.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Yup. 320 condo units at Claridge Icon bring about the same in development charges as a giant block of ~200 new single homes somewhere in Kanata. Now compare their footprints and the fact that most infrastructure on Carling is already there and guess what percentage of those development charges we are left with.

The point of development charges is to pay for local infrastructure. That is the complaint these days, that city centre projects are actually being funded by suburban development charges and local infrastructure is being deferred.

Nepean and Gloucester finances were so much better at the time of amalgamation because those suburbs were actually paying for themselves through development charges etc. Ottawa's finances were worse because aging infrastructure needed renewal and we are seeing it all the time such as Elgin Street. It is therefore questionable to say that infrastructure is already there and we will save money. When Lansdowne was to be redeveloped, what happened first? Bank Street infrastructure was redone at great expense.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The point of development charges is to pay for local infrastructure. That is the complaint these days, that city centre projects are actually being funded by suburban development charges.

That's what I'm saying. Suburban development charges pay for building new roads and sewers in the farm fields. City centre development charges pay for City centre projects and then some. When all said and done it's far from given Elgin street sees any money from Stittsville development charges. Most likely the opposite.

[Kitchissippi]

Downtown infrastructure also tends to be more communal. The chances of the Elgin Street sidewalk being used by a Kanata resident is much higher than a downtown resident using a Kanata sidewalk. Same goes for the downtown LRT.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

That's what I'm saying. Suburban development charges pay for building new roads and sewers in the farm fields. City centre development charges pay for City centre projects and then some. When all said and done it's far from given Elgin street sees any money from Stittsville development charges. Most likely the opposite.

We discussed this with a former city councilor who said that suburban development charges are being redirected elsewhere, and this is an increasing problem as more big projects are built focused in the city centre. There are simply not enough units being built in those areas to fund the projects.

Who is walking on an Elgin Street sidewalk the most? Not someone from Kanata.

The Confederation Line will have a communal benefit, but some parts of the city benefit more than others and usually those are not the growth areas. Believe me, I live near a growth area, and I experience the infrastructure deficit all the time. We all know where all the development charges are going and it is not to those communities.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

That's what I'm saying. Suburban development charges pay for building new roads and sewers in the farm fields. City centre development charges pay for City centre projects and then some. When all said and done it's far from given Elgin street sees any money from Stittsville development charges. Most likely the opposite.

I'm not so sure about that. Developers themselves build all that stuff as part of the cost of the development, then hand over to the city to maintain. While I'm all for densification, I'm not sure I buy the surburanites are subsidized by the city arguement. I think the reality of money flows are so complex it's hard to attribute who pays for what.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

I'm not so sure about that. Developers themselves build all that stuff as part of the cost of the development, then hand over to the city to maintain. While I'm all for densification, I'm not sure I buy the surburanites are subsidized by the city arguement. I think the reality of money flows are so complex it's hard to attribute who pays for what.

I think you're right that the flow of money is probably too complex to pin down precisely. But we can say that denser housing is more tax efficient. An equivalent population in the suburbs spread over a larger geographic area means more services (provided by the city) for similar amounts of tax revenue to the city. The suburbs provide similar amounts of money but receive more service by merit of being more spread out geographically.

[Truenorth00]

I don't know why this is so hard. The costs of sprawl have been studied extensively.

https://institute.smartprosperity.ca...ckgrounder.pdf

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle15218154/

It's not like this is unknown. In the immediate cash flow sense, those suburban developments are probably funding urban infrastructure. Over the long run though, there's no doubt that they are a net drain. Not a net gain. And you'd be hard pressed to find any economist or planner who sees it otherwise. To be sure, it's not just about where these developments are located. Built form matters. A dense suburban neighbourhood would probably still be cheaper to service than a neighbourhood of detached homes inside the greenbelt.

The study that Halifax did is great. Because they literally mapped out the costs of sustainment at different density levels:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/...t-development/

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

The solution is simple then. Use the revenue from toll roads and high land taxes outside the greenbelt to subsidize urban housing, and also construct new apartments and townhouses on the acres of pavement.

I don't think you even need subsidies. Put the charges on and watch what happens. The price of housing inside the greenbelt would go up. And that would incentivize developers to redevelop some of those neighbourhoods to add density.

It can't be a one stop approach. You need regulation to compel developers to build the type of housing we need (larger and more family oriented units).

I find it interesting in the US that millennials are shunning McMansions:

https://www.businessinsider.com/amer...or-good-2017-2

It's become a meme down there. We don't yet seem to have seen that effect with young people here yet. But I wonder if that will start to show up in the future. This is why I'm so excited for the Confederation Line. I really do think it will be a sea-change in mentality.

[CityTech]

In fairness, newer subdivisions in the suburbs are much denser than previously. Go out to the brand new areas of Sittsville and Barrhaven and you'll see plenty of townhouses and such.

At this point, the average density of South Barrhaven is probably higher than many of the areas inside the Greenbelt.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The point of development charges is to pay for local infrastructure. That is the complaint these days, that city centre projects are actually being funded by suburban development charges and local infrastructure is being deferred.

Nepean and Gloucester finances were so much better at the time of amalgamation because those suburbs were actually paying for themselves through development charges etc. Ottawa's finances were worse because aging infrastructure needed renewal and we are seeing it all the time such as Elgin Street. It is therefore questionable to say that infrastructure is already there and we will save money. When Lansdowne was to be redeveloped, what happened first? Bank Street infrastructure was redone at great expense.

It just doesn't work like that though. Development charges across the city are put into a big pot and then fund a number of things. So development downtown is paying for suburban projects and vice versa.

If you look at the Transportation budget page 56, you will see that the "Integrated Road, Sewer & Water Program" (which is what funds full reconstructions like Elgin and Montreal Rd) shows a $0 contribution from development charges. It's about 50/50 between taxes and water/sewer rates.

I think it's a big myth that Nepean and Gloucester were somehow miraculously debt free. Most of their major infrastructure was being paid for by RMOC. So while the cities themselves may have not incurred any debt, the region did in order to develop them.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

I think you're right that the flow of money is probably too complex to pin down precisely. But we can say that denser housing is more tax efficient. An equivalent population in the suburbs spread over a larger geographic area means more services (provided by the city) for similar amounts of tax revenue to the city. The suburbs provide similar amounts of money but receive more service by merit of being more spread out geographically.

Even that might be a gross simplification. Denser neighborhoods require more costly infrastructure (like subway tunnels) then less dense ones, since it has to support higher capacities.

Like I said I support densification. But I think there's some unicorn and magic faeries thinking that densification solves all problems.

My philosophy in life is that there is no black and white, only shades of gray.

[Horus]

So, Confederation Line...
That'll be something, eh?

[pattherat]

Originally Posted by Horus

So, Confederation Line...
That'll be something, eh?

Seriously. Start a new thread, this is so off the core topic now...

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by pattherat

Seriously. Start a new thread, this is so off the core topic now...

So, back to the topic at hand, 28 trains ready now

https://www.ligneconfederationline.c...on-update-218/

I predict they'll start the 12 day service test immediately after they have 30 certified, and a handover date of on or before May 15 for realz this time.

[kmcamp]

And, in the misery loves company department, things aren't going great across the pond

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-a4103056.html