Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jaydog0212]

Originally Posted by McC

Nope, not for the things that the old city did. Do you think that adding Nepean made libraries and firefighting services better in the core? In what way? (I'm not suggesting by implication that they were made worse, just that I can't see how adding Nepean taxpayers and Nepean libraries to the OPL would help library services in the core, especially considering the apocryphal promises of "administrative efficiencies" that were supposed to accrue). People in the core pay more, much more in property taxes. Do you think they get better service levels now that Nepean taxpayers are added to the municipal rolls? Don't forget, everyone was already paying into the till (unequally) for the regional services and infrastructure.

No but when you add around 300,000 people to the new city of Ottawa that does help so you have a bit more to draw from.

[McC]

Originally Posted by jaydog0212

No but when you add around 300,000 people to the new city of Ottawa that does help so you have a bit more to draw from.

sigh. not if the cost of the services provided to those 300K are the same (or more) than the revenues gained from their taxes. these aren't complicated maths.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by jaydog0212

You don't think it helped the core getting many more tax payers?

Also, in 2001 figures, old Ottawa had 323340 people funding 110 square kilometers (3059,7/sqKm) as opposed to 774072 for 2778 sqKm (278,6/sqKm). The central area had way more money per square kilometer as old Ottawa.

It is much more complicated having a humongous city needing to answer to the needs of all sorts of people from different environments (urban, suburban, rural) then having a smaller sized city serving a very dense urban population.

One example would be Montreal's transit system; they didn't have to worry about serving Laval, Dorval, Pointe-Clair... with rapid transit therefor they concentrated on a dense subway system in the core as opposed to Ottawa where we have to serve Orleans, Barhaven, Kanata therefor ignoring most of the core (although the OC region was also a problem since it headed the region wide transit).

Vancouver is also a good example of a small, dense city building rapid transit to serve the central city.

[Luker]

good dialogue and conversation..

[McC]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

One example would be Montreal's transit system; they didn't have to worry about serving Laval, Dorval, Pointe-Clair...

although the metro does go to both Laval and Longueuil, with further extensions planned into both of those amalgamated suburbs (but if/when that happens, the Province will foot much of the bill, because QC pays for regional transit).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by McC

although the metro does go to both Laval and Longueuil, with further extensions planned into both of those amalgamated suburbs (but if/when that happens, the Province will foot much of the bill, because QC pays for regional transit).

But Longueil's yellow line was built for the 67 Expo and would not have been worth it if it only served l'île St-Hélène. As for Laval, it was extended to the suburb in 2007 after the central island was deemed well served by 3 lines (orange, green and blue lines, not counting the yellow line).

Ottawa's LRT plan only passes thru old Ottawa by default because it "needs" to get the suburbanites to downtown. It is being built to stretch as far as possible as opposed to creating a good urban transit serving the dense central area.

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

But Longueil's yellow line was built for the 67 Expo and would not have been worth it if it only served l'île St-Hélène. As for Laval, it was extended to the suburb in 2007 after the central island was deemed well served by 3 lines (orange, green and blue lines, not counting the yellow line).

Ottawa's LRT plan only passes thru old Ottawa by default because it "needs" to get the suburbanites to downtown. It is being built to stretch as far as possible as opposed to creating a good urban transit serving the dense central area.

A business case has never been made that there is a necessity to have the LRT plan through old Ottawa (as you say). The need is to get people from where they live to where they need to go, whether it's work, school, university, hospitals, doctors, lawyers, dentists etc or go shopping and visit friends and relatives. People have to go all over town and back home and that's what a LRT system throughout the entire city should be for, not land development.

Ottawa's work force and their places of work, are pretty well distributed throughout the entire city, except in Orleans and Barrhaven, and that may change. Over 25,000 workers cross the bridges to work in Gatineau at the present time and a whole lot more (10,000?) to do the same within two years, such as Services Canada. About 10,000, mostly from Orleans, will be going to the Nortel campus. The RCMP are going to Hunt Club etc etc.

It would probably be cheaper to set up local downtown small scale transportation system, (including pedestrian tunnels between buildings) within the downtown core and to have the LRT's take people to the parameter of this core, in a "hub and spokes" fashion. Such a system is only greatly required for a few hours in the morning and a few hours in the afternoon anyway. Why not have a pedestrian tunnel under Sparks Street, that would be useful 12 months a year? I can imagine such a pedestrian tunnel with associated shops, as in Montreal, that would start from the Rideau Centre LRT station to the NAC and then all the way to 240 Sparks. In fact, it could go as far as the Bayview O-Train and Transitway station. If airport-style moving sidewalks were installed, it could rejuvenate the so-called "old Ottawa" downtown area for evening and weekend activities instead of the dead and non-revenue-generating space that it presently is. Building a tunnel under Sparks Street would make even deader (if that's possible!)

For $2.1 billions, it would be wiser to invest into a LRT system for residents of Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans than to dump money into a tunnel that will be used, at best, for 4 hours a day, Monday to Friday. Think of all the cars off the roads and savings on gas if we could go from, say, Orleans to Scotiabank Place to watch the Sens or some celebrity show. If you look on the map, it's just about a straight line from the Innes Rd in Orleans to Stittsville. Talk about rapid transit!

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

For $2.1 billions, it would be wiser to invest into a LRT system for residents of Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans than to dump money into a tunnel that will be used, at best, for 4 hours a day, Monday to Friday. Think of all the cars off the roads and savings on gas if we could go from, say, Orleans to Scotiabank Place to watch the Sens or some celebrity show. If you look on the map, it's just about a straight line from the Innes Rd in Orleans to Stittsville. Talk about rapid transit!

Riiiiight Peak hours are at least 3 hours each a.m and p.m, 6 hours is one quarter of each day, or about one third of someone's waking hours. So instead you propose to spend the money so some people in the east end can go out to ride to a game or show a few times a year?

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Riiiiight Peak hours are at least 3 hours each a.m and p.m, 6 hours is one quarter of each day, or about one third of someone's waking hours. So instead you propose to spend the money so some people in the east end can go out to ride to a game or show a few times a year?

OKaaaay!
6 hours a day for 5 days a week for 44 weeks (July and August doesn't count ...but I'm not counting holidays either). That adds up to 1320 peak hours per year.
There are 8760 hours in a year. Divide 1320 by 8760 and you get 15% usefulness per year.
Otherwise said, the DOTT will be useless 85% of the time.

P.S. Aren't we on the wrong thread?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

A business case has never been made that there is a necessity to have the LRT plan through old Ottawa (as you say). The need is to get people from where they live to where they need to go, whether it's work, school, university, hospitals, doctors, lawyers, dentists etc or go shopping and visit friends and relatives. People have to go all over town and back home and that's what a LRT system throughout the entire city should be for, not land development.

Ottawa's work force and their places of work, are pretty well distributed throughout the entire city, except in Orleans and Barrhaven, and that may change. Over 25,000 workers cross the bridges to work in Gatineau at the present time and a whole lot more (10,000?) to do the same within two years, such as Services Canada. About 10,000, mostly from Orleans, will be going to the Nortel campus. The RCMP are going to Hunt Club etc etc.

It would probably be cheaper to set up local downtown small scale transportation system, (including pedestrian tunnels between buildings) within the downtown core and to have the LRT's take people to the parameter of this core, in a "hub and spokes" fashion. Such a system is only greatly required for a few hours in the morning and a few hours in the afternoon anyway. Why not have a pedestrian tunnel under Sparks Street, that would be useful 12 months a year? I can imagine such a pedestrian tunnel with associated shops, as in Montreal, that would start from the Rideau Centre LRT station to the NAC and then all the way to 240 Sparks. In fact, it could go as far as the Bayview O-Train and Transitway station. If airport-style moving sidewalks were installed, it could rejuvenate the so-called "old Ottawa" downtown area for evening and weekend activities instead of the dead and non-revenue-generating space that it presently is. Building a tunnel under Sparks Street would make even deader (if that's possible!)

For $2.1 billions, it would be wiser to invest into a LRT system for residents of Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans than to dump money into a tunnel that will be used, at best, for 4 hours a day, Monday to Friday. Think of all the cars off the roads and savings on gas if we could go from, say, Orleans to Scotiabank Place to watch the Sens or some celebrity show. If you look on the map, it's just about a straight line from the Innes Rd in Orleans to Stittsville. Talk about rapid transit!

Let me get this straight. You are complaining about a downtown tunnel only being used 4 hours per day, and then advocating a system that serves Scotiabank Place, which hosts maybe 100 events per year, usually in the evenings? And arguing that it would be more cost-effective to serve commuters in the low-density suburbs 20km from the core with LRT than to build in the more densely-populated central city?

Please tell me that you have nothing to do with transit planning.

[alecz_dad]

Uh, aren't we getting a little offside here with this discussion of the LRT?

As has been commented, the LRT is about trying to get out to the suburbs, and it ain't goin anywhere near Lansdowne, neither does the Transitway. Just two little bus routes to service it on Bank.

So I hope when you guys feel the urge to come buy your organic nose-hair freshener from Whole Foods, you guys enjoy the 45-minute long traffic jams to get from 417 to Lansdowne Lie and another half-hour circling the neighbourhood looking for street parking because the insufficient onsite parking is all full up.

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by phil235

Let me get this straight. You are complaining about a downtown tunnel only being used 4 hours per day, and then advocating a system that serves Scotiabank Place, which hosts maybe 100 events per year, usually in the evenings? And arguing that it would be more cost-effective to serve commuters in the low-density suburbs 20km from the core with LRT than to build in the more densely-populated central city?

Please tell me that you have nothing to do with transit planning.

(quote) “ And arguing that it would be more cost-effective to serve commuters in the low-density suburbs 20km from the core with LRT than to build in the more densely-populated central city?”

And why not?

There is a great cost to live in the suburbs! First of all, you need a two-car garage for two cars to go to work, take the kids to school, to soccer practice, to dance lessons, buy groceries and dentist appointments. Not only sewers and other infrastructures have to be installed and maintained but roads and highways have to be built and maintained.
Cars have to be purchased, insurance has to be paid, maintenance up kept and gas has to be purchased, as well as paying for parking and evenings out downtown. Municipalities and the Province has to build and maintain roads. There are great costs to suburban living and one way to alleviate these costs, for both the municipality and the residents, is to provide less expensive and possibly faster public transportation.
Gas-guzzling buses are now the dinosaurs of public transportation, just like transistor radios of a long time ago. Rapid non-gas vehicles are now considered the most cost-effective and user friendly way to move around in a built-up area. That’s what a LRT is all about: to move people from one place to another without having to use an automobile.

To be cost-effective, a LRT must have a reasonable ridership, first of all, to travel at a certain speed and not have to stop too often.
This works exceptionally well between suburbs and a downtown core but not in the downtown core itself. People do not want to have to walk a klick or even half a klick when they get off the train. So they will not use the LRT train and there goes the ridership that helps to pay for the LRT to start with.

And then, the stops have to be close enough for the riders to appreciate public transportation to downtown. If they have walk in rain and snow to get to their place of work, they will take their cars and park near to here they want to go, even if it will cost them an arm and a leg to do so.
So, this is the biggest flaw of the DOTT: no foreseeable increase in ridership to help pay for the system and a great possibility of failure because it may not improve and possibly reduce the services that the present riders are having.

I would like to see a business plan for the presently planned DOTT that spells out succinctly the expected increase in ridership that will create the income to will help pay for this downtown tunnel financial venture.

There is a great possibility that this tunnel will turn out to be a Mirabel Airport White Elephant.

I would want the City planners to present a business plan presenting the various costs of building LRT between each of Barrhaven, Kanata and Orleans with expected ridership and to compare these with the present DOTT with insufficient ridership and unwarranted destination to where nobody lives nor want to go to at the present time.

We need to see a business plan that not only show the cost estimates but also the PRICE that taxpayers are expected to pay for he next 30 to 40 years. Don't forget that there is no private money involved. It's all taxpayers money: federal, provincial and municipal. Some people argue that they should not have to pay school taxes if they not longer have children going to school. How about paying for a $2.1 billion mostly tunnel through downtown that no one will care or even dare to use?

[Kitchissippi]

Rip Van Winkle just woke up

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

OKaaaay!
6 hours a day for 5 days a week for 44 weeks (July and August doesn't count ...but I'm not counting holidays either). That adds up to 1320 peak hours per year.
There are 8760 hours in a year. Divide 1320 by 8760 and you get 15% usefulness per year.
Otherwise said, the DOTT will be useless 85% of the time.

P.S. Aren't we on the wrong thread?

The average person has roughly an 80 year lifespan and could spend probably 4 years in university. That's 5%, so universities must be useless 95% of the time.

on topic, Ottawans will probably spend far less than 0.01% of their time in Lansdowne, making it one of the most useless projects in the city.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

OKaaaay!
6 hours a day for 5 days a week for 44 weeks (July and August doesn't count ...but I'm not counting holidays either). That adds up to 1320 peak hours per year.
There are 8760 hours in a year. Divide 1320 by 8760 and you get 15% usefulness per year.
Otherwise said, the DOTT will be useless 85% of the time.

P.S. Aren't we on the wrong thread?

Can we lose this notion that the City goes on vacation for 8 weeks in the summer? Has anyone ever done that? Yes, MPs leave, teachers go on holiday, but what % of working people is that really? Meanwhile, summer students only work these weeks - adding all their trips, and construction season gears up these weeks as well.

I'd like someone to show some stats on this epic 8 week city wide vacation I keep missing each year.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Uh, aren't we getting a little offside here with this discussion of the LRT?

As has been commented, the LRT is about trying to get out to the suburbs, and it ain't goin anywhere near Lansdowne, neither does the Transitway. Just two little bus routes to service it on Bank.

So I hope when you guys feel the urge to come buy your organic nose-hair freshener from Whole Foods, you guys enjoy the 45-minute long traffic jams to get from 417 to Lansdowne Lie and another half-hour circling the neighbourhood looking for street parking because the insufficient onsite parking is all full up.

You are right -we are a little offside here. I just couldn't resist responding to a claim that it is somehow more cost-effective to provide transit service outside the greenbelt. There seems to be significant confusion between a commuter service and an urban transit system like the LRT. I will resist this time.

As for Lansdowne, I'll be walking there, thanks, as will any number of people in the adjacent neighbourhoods who no longer need to drive the suburbs to see a movie etc. Not sure about your claims of 45-minute traffic jams - that seems, well, quite made up. I don't really buy these doom and gloom traffic scenarios. Sure, there will be congestion at times, but access to the site will find its equilibrium as with any other major destination in the city (well, other than that hockey-related destination in Kanata that is "well-served" by highways and express buses).

Speaking of congestion, it is not necessary a bad thing. Modern urban planning theory is moving towards an understanding that congestion has significant benefits - getting more people to shift to more active and sustainable modes of transportation, safer for pedestrians etc. And for someone in the neighbourhood who doesn't need to drive, it's unlikely to be much of a nuisance to you at all.

Finally, on transit, I'm a little tired of hearing that Lansdowne is on "two little bus routes". Two routes are quite capable of servicing this project if managed properly. And more importantly, this is the neighbourhood's opportunity to make a case for better service after the recent cuts. Instead of continuing the 4-year tradition of repeating complaints about transit ad nauseum, why not get involved and help to push for increased and better service? Lemons from lemonade, you know?

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Friends of Lansdowne won't appeal

Norman Jack-CFRA
Thursday, June 14, 2012

The group "Friends of Lansdowne" has announced it will not appeal two court rulings dismissing its opposition to the Lansdowne Park redevelopment project.

The group had alleged the sole-source process the city used to sign a deal with the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group was illegal, violating the city's own bylaws.

Their allegations were rejected by the Superior Court last summer, and the Ontario Court of Appeal in April.

The Court of Appeal's three-judge panel ruled unanimously against the group, making any appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada difficult.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

This paragraph appears in the Ottawa citizen write-up of the FOLs' decision.

The Friends will also continue to raise money, Ward said. They’ve paid their lawyers, headed by Steven Shrybman of Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell, about $300,000 so far but the outstanding bill is that much again. Though some members of the group wanted to press on, the expense of a further appeal that wouldn’t be likely to succeed isn’t worth it, Ward said.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/appeal+...#ixzz1xmW8C5o9

Wow--the FoOLS are on the hook for another 300000 bucks. I am sure the donations will really be rolling in for this lost cause!
Now I wonder if their own lawyer will sue the directors of FOL for the fees owed?

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

Wow--the FoOLS are on the hook for another 300000 bucks. I am sure the donations will really be rolling in for this lost cause!
Now I wonder if their own lawyer will sue the directors of FOL for the fees owed?

Maybe they can have 50/50 draws at football and soccer games.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Maybe they can have 50/50 draws at football and soccer games.

Sure, I will be the first to contribute to that worthy cause. [sarcasm]

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Uh, aren't we getting a little offside here with this discussion of the LRT?

As has been commented, the LRT is about trying to get out to the suburbs, and it ain't goin anywhere near Lansdowne, neither does the Transitway. Just two little bus routes to service it on Bank.

So I hope when you guys feel the urge to come buy your organic nose-hair freshener from Whole Foods, you guys enjoy the 45-minute long traffic jams to get from 417 to Lansdowne Lie and another half-hour circling the neighbourhood looking for street parking because the insufficient onsite parking is all full up.

I have these lovely things called "legs". They often get me to where I need to go and free of traffic. If I need to get somewhere faster, there are bikes, scooters, and skateboards to get me where I need to go.