Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So I was proving that they can and do build a large variety of buildings.

Sarcasm is hard to detect I guess.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree it isn't common though. The fact is builders build what people want to buy. Interestingly, Stittsville Central wrote an interesting article last month: Three ways Stittsville could benefit from more high-density development

It's much more complicated than that. Higher density neighbourhoods are less profitable for developers, because buyers are willing to pay a premium for detached homes. Hence, why they keep pushing sprawl, to let them build more SFD.

And as long as they keep doing that, the public won't adjust their tastes either.

Ever wonder why we don't see more luxurious townhomes or large family sized condos? The incentive to build this is insufficient for both developers and buyers.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I never said it was the rule. I just said that they are being built.

At rates that basically amount to greenwashing. Basically the equivalent of compliance cars.

And when they do build townhomes what do we see? Terrible urban design. Set far back from the curb. Huge driveway and garage dominate the front.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You don't need to have transit run on every single street. Using my original example, Maple Grove is within easy walking distance and the bus service could easily be upgraded along it.

By pedestrian friendly I assume you mean no access to shops within walking distance. That is an obvious flaw.

Transit friendly doesn't mean that transit has to run on the street. It means that transit can run through the neighbourhood unimpeded. This works when you stick townhouses along arterials. But our builders basically suck at building townhouses anywhere further in. That's what I was referring to.

Likewise pedestrian friendly doesn't just mean shops close by. It means making the street more amenable to pedestrians. This means smaller front lawns, narrower streets and either street parking or garages moved to one-way alleyways behind the house.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Glad you do. It seems a rarity on this forum. My comment wasn't directued at you but was indirectly in response to the following post:

I don't see how you take away from their comment that there's an assumption that everyone works downtown.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Nobody? Here is a post in another thread from just today:

Congrats, you found the extremist.

I think you can agree that most of us don't think everyone should live downtown.

But honestly, I fail to see why all of Ottawa's population could not live inside the greenbelt with proper planning and urban design. And I'm not talking about forcing everyone to live in condos either.

I'll be honest, Ottawa doesn't feel urban to me at all. Beyond the patch that is downtown, even neighbourhoods that Ottawans claim are urban are pretty damn suburban to me. Most of Ottawa is indistinguishable from Mississauga or Markham. So it blows my mind when people say that sprawl is not a problem or that there's no other way.

And most shocking is to come on this forum and to see people who supposedly support transit, defend sprawl and claim there's no other way. If this lot can't be convinced, then how can the general public?

Admittedly, I've traveled and lived in other parts of the world, so that might colour my perception. What I fear is sprawl continuing as the city grows and it'll become more suburban and bland with every passing year. As it stands I don't see Ottawa become a nice mid-sized city. I see it becoming a more expensive version of Winnipeg or a larger version of Barrie. Is that the future you guys aspire to?

[lrt's friend]

I will confess that I have driven across the Greenbelt several times in the last few days. However, I do not apologize for doing so. My family lived in the area since before the Greenbelt was created. The location of the Greenbelt was not my choosing.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot have 80% of the population living inside the Greenbelt and create a desirable living environment.

Probably not 80%, but a significant amount of the new growth could be directed inside the greenbelt if city policies didn’t so strongly subsidize sprawl.

There is a ridiculous amount of vacant land inside the greenbelt. Land the NCC is sitting on for ambiguous future uses, boarded up commercial properties, land speculators are sitting on.

In addition there are tens of thousands of houses built in the 50s and 60s that are at or near the end of their useful lives. Many of these are sitting on huge chunks of land and could easily be redeveloped as duplexes or triplexes, effectively doubling or tripling the density. These neighbourhoods were designed in an era when 4+ kids were common and therefore designed for much higher densities than are there now, making it hard to support schools and other amenities. If you present people with a false choice of condo or Kempville many people may choose the latter, but I think there are many who want an intermediate solution.

[lrt's friend]

Likewise pedestrian friendly doesn't just mean shops close by. It means making the street more amenable to pedestrians. This means smaller front lawn, narrower streets and either street parking or garages moved to one-way alleyways behind the house.

I am all for most of what you suggest. This exactly what I mean by improved urban design. However, alleyways are not going to happen in Ottawa. Our snowy climate makes this impractical. I know it is the norm in Calgary, but they don't get the degree of snow accumulation that we get.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I may live downtown but i don't work downtown. I Work at Trainyards mall which is an easy 30 min bus ride. My post is aimed at people who live in the suburbs and work downtown that contribute to the traffic messes the city faces. If people would work close to where they live like many people do then the city would face less problems. My point is guys like me shouldn't subsidize long distance commuters who chose to live far from where they work.

Exactly.

And while I get that this may be impractical for most families, what I see a lot of in Ottawa, is people using that excuse to justify sprawl.

"What if one person has to get a new job?"

Sure. But that doesn't explain why you bought a house in Stittsville when both of you work downtown. What does explain your decision is that you wanted a McMansion on your $90k combined. And now you think the government owes it to you, to bring transit to your hood and widen the highways till your exit.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I agree that most middle class people in this city don’t want to live in high rise buildings over the longer term.

I think part of the problem is that infill development is so expensive. Knocking down a 50s bungalow and building a duplex can involve tens of thousands in drawings, legal fees, permits, etc. Therefore developers tend to target affluent buyers. It would be nice if the city took steps to make these projects more affordable.

It's not like infill is much cheaper in cities around the world. What's different is that developers have no choice but to eat the higher costs, accept lower profits and move on redevelopment because open land is not easily available to them.

Here in North America, not only is open land easy to come by. But development charges don't even come close to covering all the capital costs involved in new developments, since they only take into account immediate needs (school, road in front, water service to home, etc.). And property taxes aren't really differentiated on geography and density either. Since it's all based on value, the person with a $300 000 condo in the core and the person with a $300 000 house in the burbs pay almost the same in taxes (give or take a few special charges). All that practically incentivizes sprawl.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Probably not 80%, but a significant amount of the new growth could be directed inside the greenbelt if city policies didn’t so strongly subsidize sprawl.

There is a ridiculous amount of vacant land inside the greenbelt. Land the NCC is sitting on for ambiguous future uses, boarded up commercial properties, land speculators are sitting on.

In addition there are tens of thousands of houses built in the 50s and 60s that are at or near the end of their useful lives. Many of these are sitting on huge chunks of land and could easily be redeveloped as duplexes or triplexes, effectively doubling or tripling the density. These neighbourhoods were designed in an era when 4+ kids were common and therefore designed for much higher densities than are there now, making it hard to support schools and other amenities. If you present people with a false choice of condo or Kempville many people may choose the latter, but I think there are many who want an intermediate solution.

Most of the houses that you refer to are not at the end of their useful life if they have been properly maintained.

As we see, redeveloping brown field lands is a big challenge and involves considerable extra costs that must be included in the price of the units sold. Policies don't necessarily favour developing the suburbs. The economics of redevelopment do and there is nothing we can do about that.

[lrt's friend]

I may live downtown but i don't work downtown. I Work at Trainyards mall which is an easy 30 min bus ride. My post is aimed at people who live in the suburbs and work downtown that contribute to the traffic messes the city faces. If people would work close to where they live like many people do then the city would face less problems. My point is guys like me shouldn't subsidize long distance commuters who chose to live far from where they work.

I find a great deal of irony in this post.

First, Trainyards is one of the most horrible examples of recent car oriented development in the city. I have been extremely disappointed with Trainyards that encourages people to drive from store to store. Something much better should have been built with a much better focus on pedestrians, cyclists and transit.

Second, living downtown while commuting to a suburban location is not a whole lot better than commuting from the suburbs to downtown. While you may use transit, many others in a similar situation will not. And transit is much more practical to where employment is most concentrated. I bet you that bus you use to get to the Trainyards is not standing room only. If not, then we are likely subsidizing that trip more than average.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot have 80% of the population living inside the Greenbelt and create a desirable living environment.

So you really don't understand urban design.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This cannot occur without mass demolition.

FUD. Infill development is a thing.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot stop sprawl in a growing city.

Why anybody should take your opinions on transit seriously after a post like this is beyond me.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot stop people from wanting a 3000 sq foot home outside Kemptville.

We can't stop them. But we can make sure that them and them alone bear the full cost of supporting that development.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is a democratic society, where people should have choices.

Choices normally come with consequences. Democracy is not some excuse to absolve you of responsibility.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In the long run, I am all for moving from a car-first based transport plan to a rail based plan.

Rail transit and sprawl don't go together. You support sprawl first. That is clear.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we wish to punish people living outside the Greenbelt, by not providing effective transit service including rail service, then we get what we deserve. And the consequence is the status quo. Continued low density, car based development.

The status quo is preferable to tossing gasoline on the fire and accelerating sprawl.

I'd actually be just fine with traffic getting worse every year. Impacts everyone who lives inside the Greenbelt far less than it does the suburbanites. So if they want to play that game....

Transit can't be built to areas fundamentally not designed for it. Especially not on shoestring transit capital budgets we have in this country. So people have to start making choices. Transit. Or sprawl.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Those wanting a single family home, which is their choice, will buy outside the city limits in Russell, Rockland, Kemptville, Carleton Place and Arnprior.

That's fine. But if that happens, let's make sure not a penny of our tax dollars goes towards servicing them. They can pay for their bus services. They can pay for parking in town. Etc.

You can't and shouldn't force people to buy something they don't want. But you can incentivize the outcome you want. And you sure as hell shouldn't subsidize the outcome you don't want.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Let's keep this discussion based on a degree of reality.

This discussion left reality when people decided that sprawl as a fundamental problem is not touchable as an issue to be addressed.

You can't have rail based transit and sprawl. Won't happen. And nobody is going to pay for it. As an Ottawa ratepayer, I certainly don't want to pay for it. And for as long as Ottawa has existed, the province has shown zero inclination to pay for it.

The costs of Stage 3 into Kanata really show you how expensive it gets to service suburbs with good urban transit. You won't see transit extending out from there. All further investment will be inside (like beefing up the Trillium Line).

Tell those suburbanites to buy Teslas and use autopilot. That's the best they are going to get.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Second, living downtown while commuting to a suburban location is not a whole lot better than commuting from the suburbs to downtown.

Ummm what?

Counter-peak commute is substantially better than peak commute.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So you really don't understand urban design.



FUD. Infill development is a thing.



Why anybody should take your opinions on transit seriously after a post like this is beyond me.



We can't stop them. But we can make sure that them and them alone bear the full cost of supporting that development.



Choices normally come with consequences. Democracy is not some excuse to absolve you of responsibility.




Rail transit and sprawl don't go together. You support sprawl first. That is clear.



The status quo is preferable to tossing gasoline on the fire and accelerating sprawl.

I'd actually be just fine with traffic getting worse every year. Impacts everyone who lives inside the Greenbelt far less than it does the suburbanites. So if they want to play that game....

Transit can't be built to areas fundamentally not designed for it. Especially not on shoestring transit capital budgets we have in this country. So people have to start making choices. Transit. Or sprawl.



That's fine. But if that happens, let's make sure not a penny of our tax dollars goes towards servicing them. They can pay for their bus services. They can pay for parking in town. Etc.

You can't and shouldn't force people to buy something they don't want. But you can incentivize the outcome you want. And you sure as hell shouldn't subsidize the outcome you don't want.



This discussion left reality when people decided that sprawl as a fundamental problem is not touchable as an issue to be addressed.

You can't have rail based transit and sprawl. Won't happen. And nobody is going to pay for it. As an Ottawa ratepayer, I certainly don't want to pay for it. And for as long as Ottawa has existed, the province has shown zero inclination to pay for it.

The costs of Stage 3 into Kanata really show you how expensive it gets to service suburbs with good urban transit. You won't see transit extending out from there. All further investment will be inside (like beefing up the Trillium Line).

Tell those suburbanites to buy Teslas and use autopilot. That's the best they are going to get.

You disagree with everything I say. Why? It makes no sense, when I keep saying we need to improve urban design.

You give a lot of double talk. One minute you oppose rail service to the suburbs, but then you say Orleans should get rail service first.

We are 50 years too late concerning our 3 major suburbs. They have been built with over 100,000+ population each. We need to service them.

Sorry, but traffic from the suburbs does impact the city. I see it every day.

I am all in favour of intensification but you are kidding yourself if you think that is going to make a huge difference.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Most of the houses that you refer to are not at the end of their useful life if they have been properly maintained.

As we see, redeveloping brown field lands is a big challenge and involves considerable extra costs that must be included in the price of the units sold. Policies don't necessarily favour developing the suburbs. The economics of redevelopment do and there is nothing we can do about that.

Very few of these buildings have been well maintained. Even those that have been well cared for (not the same thing as maintenance) often have significant problems and need teardown or major reconstruction.

They economics of development have been created by city and provincial policies. Exurban subdivisions are approved in bulk, infill projects require individual approval, often jumping through many hoops and incurring many costs. That is why when these projects are only viable in affluent neighbourhoods or very close to downtown.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You disagree with everything I say. Why? It makes no sense, when I keep saying we need to improve urban design.

And yet oppose all the changes to enable improved urban design.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You give a lot of double talk. One minute you oppose rail service to the suburbs, but then you say Orleans should get rail service first.

I've been very clear on my views. I didn't like the idea of LRT leaving the greenbelt. But if it was inevitable then let it go to a suburb with high ridership first.

If I had a magic wand, LRT would have never left the greenbelt and those funds would have been used to twin track and electrify the Trillium Line and build parking structures at all the terminus to go with the taxes on core parking spots.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We are 50 years too late concerning our 3 major suburbs. They have been built with over 100,000+ population each. We need to service them.

And that's exactly what Stage 2 and Stage 3 will do. Why commuter rail is needed on top of the billions spend on LRT is beyond me. You know what is needed in the burbs? Buses.

Also, let's not forget the topic of this thread: rural bus service. And as I keep saying, showing me why we should subsidize this. I am not opposed to CRT running buses to Ottawa. I just don't see why they should get discounted passes on top of that.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Sorry, but traffic from the suburbs does impact the city. I see it every day.

Impacts the suburbs far more than it impacts residents inside the greenbelt.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am all in favour of intensification

Except for every instance when you offer an excuse on why intensification can't happen....

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

...but you are kidding yourself if you think that is going to make a huge difference.

Ah yes. It works everywhere else in the world. But Ottawa is a special snowflake so it won't work here.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I find a great deal of irony in this post.

First, Trainyards is one of the most horrible examples of recent car oriented development in the city. I have been extremely disappointed with Trainyards that encourages people to drive from store to store. Something much better should have been built with a much better focus on pedestrians, cyclists and transit.

Second, living downtown while commuting to a suburban location is not a whole lot better than commuting from the suburbs to downtown. While you may use transit, many others in a similar situation will not. And transit is much more practical to where employment is most concentrated. I bet you that bus you use to get to the Trainyards is not standing room only. If not, then we are likely subsidizing that trip more than average.

I agree that design of Trainyards is horible but i chose to work there since it was closer than working out in Canotek. FYI buses are usually crushloaded when i have to go to Trainyards.

Anyway thats far better than OC Transpo bringing people all the way out from Barrhaven, Orleans and Kanata to downtown Hull and the same goes for the Rural partner routes.

[Acajack]

We should keep in mind that a lot of people (most?) don't get to "choose" the location of their job. It's more common to "choose" where you live, but even there there are trade-offs and compromises.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We should keep in mind that a lot of people (most?) don't get to "choose" the location of their job. It's more common to "choose" where you live, but even there there are trade-offs and compromises.

Everybody has choices, if your job moves to a further location, then you either move or change jobs which is what I did.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Everybody has choices, if your job moves to a further location, then you either move or change jobs which is what I did.

It's not that easy for a lot of people.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Everybody has choices, if your job moves to a further location, then you either move or change jobs which is what I did.

That isn’t always feasible, or practical, or sensible.

But I think the vast majority of the people we’re talking about choose houses that were never close to any workplace.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That isn’t always feasible, or practical, or sensible.

But I think the vast majority of the people we’re talking about choose houses that were never close to any workplace.

That was my point as well.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Everybody has choices, if your job moves to a further location, then you either move or change jobs which is what I did.

Such flexibility would most likely require that you rent for as long as you work.

It's a hard sell to most people.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Such flexibility would most likely require that you rent for as long as you work.

It's a hard sell to most people.

That's not my problem. If people don't want to make themselves flexible thats's thier problem. Job environments change from year to year which requires more flexibilty. People nowadays knows they wont stay in the same job until retirement. Every person I have worked with have changed jobs or been transfered at least a few times.