Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Back to topic... So it's indeed fair for those rural transportation companies to charge a high fare to keep a high farebox recovery ratio then?

Absolutely is. As an Ottawa taxpayer, I don't have a problem with it. I only wish, Ottawa had a congestion charge, so they couldn't escape the consequences of their choices entirely.

Those towns are doing what they perceive to be in their best interest. I fail to see the issue. Whether they want to subsidize bus service or not, is something only they can decide.

[Dengler Avenue]

Heck we may even leave Ottawa Road 174/P & R Road 17 as is so people learn to work where they live.

As for housing costs though, just keep in mind that there's after all a threshold. I don't think anyone would (or should) find it reasonable to pay $1000+ per month for a HK-style apartment suit (or a Japanese-style Tatami). Otherwise, it really is exploitation.

As for giant mansions in the middle of nowhere? Well that Canadian/American dream will (and should) soon come to an end.

Now I can definitely see the case for a smaller Ottawa so that OC Transpo doesn't bankrupt the city.

But yes, it'd be ideal if people live where they work. Commuting to work really sucks.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Their problems should not become the problems of Ottawa taxpayers. I don't see any reason why they should get any sweetheart deals. They paid for cheaping housing out there. The downside is and should be their commuting cost.

As for setting up GO transit. GO was not set up to connect townships of 10 000 to downtown Toronto. It was set up to actually connect suburbs that were actual cities in their own right.

Ottawa doesn't need GO. What is needed here is for these towns to subsidize the commutes of their own residents or for the residents to comprehend that buying acre lots in the boonies has a downside.

And no merger of OC Transpo with their services. That's just the slippery slope to more direct subsidies of their services.

I do not have an issue with OC Transpo offering a discounted monthly pass to the commuter services, in exchange for it being mandatory and integrated into the commuter service pricing (no opt-out). These people are not using OC Transpo service on weekends or evenings, they will almost all only be traveling on high capacity, low cost O-Train service. Very few continue onto the bus network, so the cost to provide them the service they want is low, and the full monthly pass would be unreasonable expensive for the amount they would actually use the service.

We provide a similar discount to post-secondary students, because we know that not all of them use it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Now I can definitely see the case for a smaller Ottawa so that OC Transpo doesn't bankrupt the city.

.

Looking at the map of OC Transpo's services (especially the rural ones) I've often wondered what the cost is of running buses all the way to out to places like Carlsbad Springs, because they're technically "in the city" and it's "owed to them", I guess. Though I admit to having no idea if it's actually that big a drain on OC Transpo's budget.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I do not have an issue with OC Transpo offering a discounted monthly pass to the commuter services, in exchange for it being mandatory and integrated into the commuter service pricing (no opt-out). These people are not using OC Transpo service on weekends or evenings, they will almost all only be traveling on high capacity, low cost O-Train service. Very few continue onto the bus network, so the cost to provide them the service they want is low, and the full monthly pass would be unreasonable expensive for the amount they would actually use the service.

We provide a similar discount to post-secondary students, because we know that not all of them use it.

This seems reasonable.

I do not think we should be dictating people's lifestyle or locations. There are many reasons why people choose where they live. Some people just want some peace and quiet away from the growing hustle and bustle of the city.

Regardless, our city needs to facilitate better urban design without restricting people's choices.

I also cannot imagine imposing congestion fees for those entering the city from outside the Greenbelt. I live inside the Greenbelt but I do a lot of business and volunteering outside the Greenbelt and I will be really p***ed off if I have to pay a congestion fee every time I make that 5 minute trip across the Greenbelt when there is no adequate alternative. Arbitrary congestion fees in suburban areas are just mind boggling. What we would be doing is turning the clock back 100 years to the days of toll gates, without understanding the reasons why we got rid of them.

We have to be careful because certain policy choices may raise the price of housing even faster with the unintended consequence of driving more people, jobs and retail to the exurbs. Remember the 1960s when Ottawa wanted to maintain Victorian retail policies, which drove many stores to just beyond the city limits where they could open to 10 p.m. every night.

Instead, we need to be actually serving the public who are paying taxes. Sure, local services should be paid by local taxes, but we should not be punishing people because of where they choose to live.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Instead, we need to be actually serving the public who are paying taxes. Sure, local services should be paid by local taxes, but we should not be punishing people because of where they choose to live.

The flip side of that is that we shouldn't be subsidizing those choices to nearly the same degree as we currently are, either.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The flip side of that is that we shouldn't be subsidizing those choices to nearly the same degree as we currently are, either.

Are we? That is a whole different debate.

Suppose we compare someone choosing to live in Ashton and someone living downtown, both working at DND on Moodie. Which requires more costly infrastructure?

Then consider if they both worked at the Tanger outlet mall in Kanata.

There are many moving parts in making the claim about subsidies.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This seems reasonable.

I do not think we should be dictating people's lifestyle or locations. There are many reasons why people choose where they live. Some people just want some peace and quiet away from the growing hustle and bustle of the city.

Regardless, our city needs to facilitate better urban design without restricting people's choices.

I also cannot imagine imposing congestion fees for those entering the city from outside the Greenbelt. I live inside the Greenbelt but I do a lot of business and volunteering outside the Greenbelt and I will be really p***ed off if I have to pay a congestion fee every time I make that 5 minute trip across the Greenbelt when there is no adequate alternative. Arbitrary congestion fees in suburban areas are just mind boggling. What we would be doing is turning the clock back 100 years to the days of toll gates, without understanding the reasons why we got rid of them.

We have to be careful because certain policy choices may raise the price of housing even faster with the unintended consequence of driving more people, jobs and retail to the exurbs. Remember the 1960s when Ottawa wanted to maintain Victorian retail policies, which drove many stores to just beyond the city limits where they could open to 10 p.m. every night.

Instead, we need to be actually serving the public who are paying taxes. Sure, local services should be paid by local taxes, but we should not be punishing people because of where they choose to live.

Some retail businesses and areas, in particular just inside the Greenbelt in first-ring older suburbs, are already struggling. I don't think they'd appreciate if customers from just across a patch of greenspace had to pay a toll just to come to their place of business.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Looking at the map of OC Transpo's services (especially the rural ones) I've often wondered what the cost is of running buses all the way to out to places like Carlsbad Springs, because they're technically "in the city" and it's "owed to them", I guess. Though I admit to having no idea if it's actually that big a drain on OC Transpo's budget.

The way OC Transpo is financed, the city's portion of the cost (aka the net amount after fare revenue and provincial subsidies) is financed through a series of special tax charges dedicated to OC Transpo, rather than the city's general revenues.

The city is divided into 3 areas:
-The "Urban Transit Area", the urban area of the city
-The "Rural Transit Area A", rural part of former Cumberland Township along with Richmond, Munster, and Manotick, the areas that have peak period bus routes
-The "Rural Transit Area B", the rest of the city (West Carleton, and Rideau-Goulbourn and Osgoode minus Richmond, Munster, and Manotick), the areas that have no fixed transit routes.

The cost of providing paratransit service (which is available to the whole city) is collectively charged to all 3 areas, while the net cost of providing rural bus routes (the cost of running them, minus fare revenue from those areas, minus their per-capita share of provincial subsidies) is collectively charged to properties in Rural Transit Area A. The remainder of OC Transpo's net costs are collectively charged to properties in the Urban Transit Area.

So the rural areas of the city that receive transit service pay the real cost of providing that service. It's actually lower than the cost in the city, because the rural routes only have a handful of peak period trips. The Rural routes used to have a special fare premium, about $20 a month more than a suburban express pass and about $1 more per cash ride. In 2012, they eliminated this premium and then raised the transit tax in Rural Transit Area A to make up the difference.

IMHO, this system is kind of unfair, because Rural residents can still drive inside the UTA and take a park and ride bus, which they aren't paying for. A portion of the cost of urban transit service should be applied to both rural transit areas to reflect this.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Some retail businesses and areas, in particular just inside the Greenbelt in first-ring older suburbs, are already struggling. I don't think they'd appreciate if customers from just across a patch of greenspace had to pay a toll just to come to their place of business.

Exactly, we would be creating a barrier to commerce with all kinds of consequences. This is more than just changing people's lifestyle choices.

Ottawa is not central London where congestion had become a major concern and where an alternative (the tube) was already in place.

[lrt's friend]

I will one more thing.

We cannot advocate not building LRT across the Greenbelt while at the same time advocating congestion fees at the same location. This just isolates the inner city into an island and we are asking for money and people to flee outwardly.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I do not have an issue with OC Transpo offering a discounted monthly pass to the commuter services, in exchange for it being mandatory and integrated into the commuter service pricing (no opt-out).

I take issue with it. They are literally being incentivized by the City of Ottawa to live outside the City of Ottawa. Why is that necessary?

Originally Posted by Catenary

These people are not using OC Transpo service on weekends or evenings, they will almost all only be traveling on high capacity, low cost O-Train service.

You don't see this as a problem. But I do. These folks will help fill up the trains at the terminus, leaving less room for everyone else who actually lives in and pays taxes in Ottawa.

If you really want to see how bad it can get, go to Toronto and talk to anybody taking the Yonge Line at any station south of Finch at rush. Every train leaves Finch station with every seat taken, and the majority of those commuters aren't from the City of Toronto. They're from York Region. I can absolutely imagine just this scenario from Trim Rd if given discounted passes to CRT riders.

Not all usage is equal. Peak usage of any part of the transport network, be it road or rail is highly valued. And you are suggesting effectively subsidizing that for them, with discounts.

[QUOTE=Catenary;8395436]
Very few continue onto the bus network, so the cost to provide them the service they want is low, and the full monthly pass would be unreasonable expensive for the amount they would actually use the service.

Originally Posted by Catenary

We provide a similar discount to post-secondary students, because we know that not all of them use it.

We provide discounts to students because:

1) They tend to have limited income.
2) Most won't travel at peak.
3) The educational institutions are all inside the City of Ottawa and so are the vast majority of students.
4) Their travel patterns are reasonably diffuse that they are going to keep adding to peak flows.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I will one more thing.

We cannot advocate not building LRT across the Greenbelt while at the same time advocating congestion fees at the same location. This just isolates the inner city into an island and we are asking for money and people to flee outwardly.

Find me a place in the world where this is true.

Show me a single place where congestion fees have caused sprawl.

Every city that I know of that has actual or effective (like NYC bridge tolls) congestion charges, has higher transit usage and higher density in the core. Put a cost to sprawl and all of a sudden people think twice about whether they really need 2000 sqft to raise two kids.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do not think we should be dictating people's lifestyle or locations. There are many reasons why people choose where they live. Some people just want some peace and quiet away from the growing hustle and bustle of the city.

This is the bullshit often used to justify sprawl.

Again. Why should we subsidize that choice?

Their peace and quiet now means my tax dollars going to supporting the extension of roads and sewers and everything from trash collection to libraries into lower density and less efficient areas. And now folks like you want to add rail extensions, rural bus service and even transit pass discounts?

Let them pay for their "peace and quiet". I don't see why I should have to see my dollars subsidize that while I choose to live in a 1000 sqft condo in the city, and not contribute to sprawl.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Find me a place in the world where this is true.

Show me a single place where congestion fees have caused sprawl.

Every city that I know of that has actual or effective (like NYC bridge tolls) congestion charges, has higher transit usage and higher density in the core. Put a cost to sprawl and all of a sudden people think twice about whether they really need 2000 sqft to raise two kids.



This is the bullshit often used to justify sprawl.

Again. Why should we subsidize that choice?

Their peace and quiet now means my tax dollars going to supporting the extension of roads and sewers and everything from trash collection to libraries into lower density and less efficient areas. And now folks like you want to add rail extensions, rural bus service and even transit pass discounts?

Let them pay for their "peace and quiet". I don't see why I should have to see my dollars subsidize that while I choose to live in a 1000 sqft condo in the city, and not contribute to sprawl.

amen to that

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Find me a place in the world where this is true.

Show me a single place where congestion fees have caused sprawl.

Every city that I know of that has actual or effective (like NYC bridge tolls) congestion charges, has higher transit usage and higher density in the core. Put a cost to sprawl and all of a sudden people think twice about whether they really need 2000 sqft to raise two kids.



This is the bullshit often used to justify sprawl.

Again. Why should we subsidize that choice?

Their peace and quiet now means my tax dollars going to supporting the extension of roads and sewers and everything from trash collection to libraries into lower density and less efficient areas. And now folks like you want to add rail extensions, rural bus service and even transit pass discounts?

Let them pay for their "peace and quiet". I don't see why I should have to see my dollars subsidize that while I choose to live in a 1000 sqft condo in the city, and not contribute to sprawl.

My gawd, look at how far New York City sprawls out. Congestion fees encourage transit use, as do parking fees. They do not prevent sprawl. But at the same time, every city that does this, offers a transit alternative.

You want some utopian society where everybody is stuck in condo towers, and because everybody is crammed into a small area, land prices will skyrocket, and those condos will mostly be cheap commie blocks like I saw in Eastern Europe, before sanity returned to those countries. That's all we will be able to afford.

In Canada, many people will choose to leave that environment and take their money with them to the exurbs. You want an economic and transportation barrier between city and country. That simply will not work. No city does that. There is always an alternative transportation system.

There is no possibility in charging people entirely fairly for public services that they use. We have property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes and user fees. None can be assessed for perfect and entirely fair cost recovery.

[acottawa]

There are all sorts of housing options available at all sorts of price points within the urban area of Ottawa. If people want to live pointlessly far away that is their business, but taxpayers shouldn’t pay for it.

[waterloowarrior]

GO Transit is not just for downtown Toronto commuters but has expanded to replace Greyhound and other regional bus services. Buses go to Brantford, Beaverton, Beamsville, Bowmanville, and beyond. The PC government is already expanding the mandate of Metrolinx through Bill 57* to rural and exurban municipalities in Southern Ontario.

They should really take a hard look at establishing a similar organization for the Ottawa metro area and Eastern Ontario (including stops within Ottawa), aiming for a similar 75% cost recovery ratio (i.e. 25% provincial funding), or potentially expanding GO province wide.

*The regional transportation area is expanded by adding the Regional Municipality of Niagara, Haldimand County, the County of Brant, the City of Brantford, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, the County of Wellington, the City of Guelph, the County of Dufferin, the County of Simcoe, the City of Barrie, the City of Orillia, the City of Kawartha Lakes, the County of Peterborough, the City of Peterborough and the County of Northumberland.
https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-b...1/bill-57#BK27

Fare integration should be encouraged by the Provincial government through Presto/gas tax funding, as they do in the GTHA.

Good recent article about how the disparity in the Province's attention to Golden Horseshoe intercity transit/busing vs the rest of the province
https://tvo.org/article/current-affa...ling-ontarians

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My gawd, look at how far New York City sprawls out.

Are you seriously comparing Ottawa to a metro area that is 15 times the size? By the way, the New York metro area with its "sprawl" has double the density in its MSA compared to the Ottawa CMA.

Oh and the residents of New York City aren't seeing their property taxes provide transit discounts to Long Island residents. In fact, a lot of cities in the US have rules paying city workers who choose to live outside the city's boundaries less.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Congestion fees encourage transit use, as do parking fees. They do not prevent sprawl.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But at the same time, every city that does this, offers a transit alternative.

Not really true. But if this is the approach, sure, let's have a congestion charge for outside the greenbelt and then offer 10 min bus service to all the suburbs. I'm cool with that.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You want some utopian society where everybody is stuck in condo towers, and because everybody is crammed into a small area, land prices will skyrocket, and those condos will mostly be cheap commie blocks like I saw in Eastern Europe, before sanity returned to those countries. That's all we will be able to afford.

If you've been to Europe, you'd know how ridiculous and ignorant this strawman is. Par for the course for you.

Most of Europe doesn't have tower blocks of condos. But what we have in Ottawa (and Canada in general) is the insistence on a specific form of housing at any and all cost: detached housing. Somehow people think the same 2000 sqft in a 3-storey urban town or in a large low-rise condo is far less acceptable. And they cling to this nonsense even as cities grow into the millions. And when they can't get it in the city, society has to subsidize them getting their detached dream in the exurbs.

Suggest they change and you get the same ignorant strawman. "This isn't Europe. I don't want to live like a peasant in box." From the set who've never actually visited or lived in a medium sized European city. Or they'd know that's not true. That people in Europe live in houses too.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In Canada, many people will choose to leave that environment and take their money with them to the exurbs.

And if they do, they should not be subsidized.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You want an economic and transportation barrier between city and country. That simply will not work. No city does that. There is always an alternative transportation system.

I agree that congestion charges are a hard sell. You know what would be a good start though? Zero effort to support them or subsidize them. No transit passes or discounts to these folks. And not one penny of Ottawa's taxes to build infrastructure to them. Either they pay for it. Or the province can do that.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is no possibility in charging people entirely fairly for public services that they use. We have property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes and user fees. None can be assessed for perfect and entirely fair cost recovery.

I could not care less about cost recovery. I only care that the City of Ottawa is not subsidizing or facilitating their sprawl. We already pay higher than necessary taxes to fund our own sprawl in our suburbs. Can't afford to fund their on top of all that.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually own property and pay property taxes. I don't see how anybody could get that tax bill and not be upset to see it spent inefficiently paying for sprawl.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There are all sorts of housing options available at all sorts of price points within the urban area of Ottawa. If people want to live pointlessly far away that is their business, but taxpayers shouldn’t pay for it.

Ridiculous strawmen is all some have to offer.

Mid-sized European cities are filled with houses. And low rise apartments. Built in nice walkable neighbhourhoods. Somehow, we can't have that. 'Cause apparently our planners and builders don't know anything between commie apartment block and mcmansion.

Don't you know? Canadian architects and urban planners are incapable of anything else?

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Are you seriously comparing Ottawa to a metro area that is 15 times the size? By the way, the New York metro area with its "sprawl" has double the density in its MSA compared to the Ottawa CMA.

Oh and the residents of New York City aren't seeing their property taxes provide transit discounts to Long Island residents. In fact, a lot of cities in the US have rules paying city workers who choose to live outside the city's boundaries less.



Evidence?



Not really true. But if this is the approach, sure, let's have a congestion charge for outside the greenbelt and then offer 10 min bus service to all the suburbs. I'm cool with that.



If you've been to Europe, you'd know how ridiculous and ignorant this strawman is. Par for the course for you.

Most of Europe doesn't have tower blocks of condos. But what we have in Ottawa (and Canada in general) is the insistence on a specific form of housing at any and all cost: detached housing. Somehow people think the same 2000 sqft in a 3-storey urban town or in a large low-rise condo is far less acceptable. And they cling to this nonsense even as cities grow into the millions. And when they can't get it in the city, society has to subsidize them getting their detached dream in the exurbs.

Suggest they change and you get the same ignorant strawman. "This isn't Europe. I don't want to live like a peasant in box." From the set who've never actually visited or lived in a medium sized European city. Or they'd know that's not true. That people in Europe live in houses too.



And if they do, they should not be subsidized.



I agree that congestion charges are a hard sell. You know what would be a good start though? Zero effort to support them or subsidize them. No transit passes or discounts to these folks. And not one penny of Ottawa's taxes to build infrastructure to them. Either they pay for it. Or the province can do that.



I could not care less about cost recovery. I only care that the City of Ottawa is not subsidizing or facilitating their sprawl. We already pay higher than necessary taxes to fund our own sprawl in our suburbs. Can't afford to fund their on top of all that.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually own property and pay property taxes. I don't see how anybody could get that tax bill and not be upset to see it spent inefficiently paying for sprawl.

Very well said. I find it stupid when people use such arguements. I live in downtown HULL in a nice afforable area only a few blocks from the Museum of History. I could have chose to live in the suburbs like alot of people do but I won't do that because I like living downtown. I agree lets stop supporting suburban and exurban sprawl, let those who choose to live there pay for themselves.