2023 Transportation Master Plan

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Which ones there are being funded with 0% local financing?

All the GO projects with the exception of Union Station redevelopment. This includes the $10+ billion GO electrification plan. All the LRT lines being built in the GTA are to be owned, funded and operated by Metrolinx. The deal that Ottawa got was horrendous.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

In what way?

The city builds traffic sewers. At least the NCC has parkland and MUPs around their traffic sewers.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

All the GO projects with the exception of Union Station redevelopment. This includes the $10+ billion GO electrification plan. All the LRT lines being built in the GTA are to be owned, funded and operated by Metrolinx. The deal that Ottawa got was horrendous.

I totally agree. We got screwed each time so far with the largest percentage coming from local property taxpayers. This is one of the reasons why our remaining bus system is in a shambles.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Rather than making a Greenbelt 2, I'd actually prefer a plan to replace the existing Greenbelt with a Greenbelt 2 through land swaps.

In the west, sell off the land between Barrhaven/Kanata and Nepean, and use the money to buy up all the land separating Barrhaven & Kanata from Richmond, Manotick, and Carp for a new Greenbelt. That way, we build up the suburbs to be closer to each other instead of extending further outwards. There's so much land in this part of the Greenbelt that it could basically mean the southern and western limits of the urban boundary are not extended again for a century or more.

In the south and the east, however, this is harder to do because much of the Greenbelt lands are undevelopable anyway (due to the airport exclusion zone and Mer Bleue). However, some smaller scale swaps might be possible. In the east, sell off the Greenbelt lands north of the 174 and use the money to extend the Greenbelt to include some of the rural areas between Orleans and Navan. (That actually helps Mer Bleue by keeping Orleans further away from it). In the south, sell off the area between Blossom Park and Findlay Creek and use the money to buy up the land between Findlay Creek/Riverside South and Greely.

Because the sold off Greenbelt land would be more valuable than the land making up the new Greenbelt 2, we could actually have a net increase in the amount of protected land. And we could trade in simple farmland for the opportunity to protect lands like the wetlands between Kanata and Carp. Not to mention, makes the city grow closer together instead of further apart. Win-win-win.

I don't like the idea of giving up existing greenbelt, with the possible exception of the area around Eagleson and Moodie, which is ripe for some TOD following the LRT extensions. Also the area around Hurdman needs development.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

I don't like the idea of giving up existing greenbelt, with the possible exception of the area around Eagleson and Moodie, which is ripe for some TOD following the LRT extensions. Also the area around Hurdman needs development.

Thing is, every spot of land in the Greenbelt is just one more spot of land on the fringes of Barrhaven and Stittsville that is turned from farms or nature to houses. Land is going to be used up for the growth of the city, and putting it between existing urban communities makes a lot more sense than expanding outwards.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

I don't like the idea of giving up existing greenbelt, with the possible exception of the area around Eagleson and Moodie, which is ripe for some TOD following the LRT extensions. Also the area around Hurdman needs development.

We may wait forever to see Hurdman fully redeveloped having been a garbage dump. That is why that strip of land from Brewer Park to Dow's Lake along Bronson has never been developed other than roads, parking lots and sports fields.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The city builds traffic sewers. At least the NCC has parkland and MUPs around their traffic sewers.

That just generates lots of additional vehicle-miles worth of emissions.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Thing is, every spot of land in the Greenbelt is just one more spot of land on the fringes of Barrhaven and Stittsville that is turned from farms or nature to houses. Land is going to be used up for the growth of the city, and putting it between existing urban communities makes a lot more sense than expanding outwards.

That's not true. Urban sprawl happens because city hall wants it to happen. It's the city that authorizes the expansion of the urban boundary. It's the city that grants permits. It's the city that says where and when those suburban developments happen. The fact that some land is being reserved from development by the greenbelt doesn't mean that an equal parcel of land somewhere else will invariably be used for development. Intensification is a real thing that can and is often used as an alternative to more and more shitty sprawl.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That just generates lots of additional vehicle-miles worth of emissions.

An inefficient congested road system generates unneeded emissions. So, if we look at from an emissions point of view, we should not wish this city to reach gridlock in order to force people onto transit. Transit should stand on its own merits, something that it has not been achieving lately.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

That's not true. Urban sprawl happens because city hall wants it to happen. It's the city that authorizes the expansion of the urban boundary. It's the city that grants permits. It's the city that says where and when those suburban developments happen. The fact that some land is being reserved from development by the greenbelt doesn't mean that an equal parcel of land somewhere else will invariably be used for development. Intensification is a real thing that can and is often used as an alternative to more and more shitty sprawl.

Intensification is real but it will never amount to 100% of our new construction unless the city's growth slows down considerably.

[Uhuniau]

The city can continue to grow; there just need to be tighter constraints on the form that growth takes, starting with the basics of street layout, transportation hierarchy, and especially land use regulation. It's not just intensification of existing areas; new ones have to be built having shattered the post-war orthodoxy into tiny pieces.

So far, we still ain't doing much of that.

[rakerman]

The TMP is about more than just trains, but anyway, here's Stage 3

Stage 3 purple from Light-Rail-Transit-Project_Tech-Briefing_20190222_EN by Richard Akerman, on Flickr

The links are
https://ottawa.ca/kanataLRT
and
https://ottawa.ca/barrhavenLRT

The Prince of Wales situation is up in the air. Refurb plans for pedestrians and cyclists, but whether it will ever carry rail again is not clear.

[DEWLine]

Well, this is good to see.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by rakerman

The TMP is about more than just trains, but anyway, here's Stage 3

Stage 3 purple from Light-Rail-Transit-Project_Tech-Briefing_20190222_EN by Richard Akerman, on Flickr

Interesting that the map still seems to show the Baseline BRT but doesn't show the Kanata North BRT that is in the current TMP.

I was taking a bus from Kanata North this afternoon and it took 3 light cycles to turn from Carling onto March Rd.

Bus lanes or a median BRT along March Rd (from Teron to Solandt or Terry Fox) and transit priority on Teron Rd would provide a lot of benefit.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Interesting that the map still seems to show the Baseline BRT but doesn't show the Kanata North BRT that is in the current TMP.

I was taking a bus from Kanata North this afternoon and it took 3 light cycles to turn from Carling onto March Rd.

Bus lanes or a median BRT along March Rd (from Teron to Solandt or Terry Fox) and transit priority on Teron Rd would provide a lot of benefit.

I'd guess it's because Baseline has a completed study and is just waiting on funding.

The Cumberland Transitway isn't on that map either, and neither is the Western half of the Baseline BRT.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by DEWLine

Well, this is good to see.

FYI, this is fan-made by rakerman, and hasn't been put-out by the City

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

FYI, this is fan-made by rakerman, and hasn't been put-out by the City

That particular map was published by the city during the Stage 2 technical briefing back in February I believe.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That particular map was published by the city during the Stage 2 technical briefing back in February I believe.

Ahh, you're right - my bad

[J.OT13]

I'll just leave this here.


https://twitter.com/heatshear/status...61773497634822

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'll just leave this here.


https://twitter.com/heatshear/status...61773497634822

Interesting. One thing to note is the scales are different on the 4 maps. For the darkest green:

* Drive   = 91.6 - 96.3%

* Transit = 31.6 - 50.0%

* Walk    = 17.2 - 46.1%

* Bike    =  6.1 - 15.3%

As a result, the darkest green on bike is the same as the 2nd and 3rd darkest colours on walk, is below the lightest colour on Transit and well below the lightest colour on Drive.