Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

As acottawa, usually these are services to the nearest rail station.

But also, those countries subsidize public transport far more than we do. In a situation, where the province is willing to pay all of the cost? Sure. But we're very far from that.

100% in agreement, though the exact same argument could be made for universal healthcare in the USA, for example.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Gothenburg's metro is 1M+.

Ottawa's is still 50% larger, and in the range of 20-25% larger even if you just count the Ontario side of the river.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I saw that in Gothenburg, Sweden, a city significantly smaller than Ottawa.

It all depends on whether we want to continue total auto dependence beyond the most urban parts of Ottawa. I hate to say this but auto dependence in metro Ottawa is actually increasing.

This is a choice that we are making.

Places I had in mind were Adelaide, Australia or Dublin, Ireland.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And we have a lot more trains to the core than we did 5 years ago. Ergo, no need to send buses to the core.



GO launched in 1967. The GTA+Hamilton was already over 3 million at that point. So no, we're not close. And nor is there any scenario where we'll be close to 3 million in our lifetimes. Heck, the province isn't even projecting all of Eastern Ontario to break 2.5M by 2046.

https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/dem...o%20grow,22.7%20per%20cent%20in%20Lanark.

Well, Hamilton metro was 450,000 in 1967, so the area wasn't over 3 million, though it was bigger than Ottawa is now. But as has been pointed out, there are lots of places in the world that are under 2 million and have commuter service. And yes Ottawa has trains now (LRT trains), but exactly none of them are commuter trains going to the core, so it's not like the routes that would be served by GO buses are covered by the LRT.

It doesn't take huge numbers of people to justify a bus route. We are talking in the low hundreds of passengers per day. I'm really not sure how arguing against better regional transit, or an integration of modes, is in anyone's interest.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Cool. I guess we can close this thread then....

Not really considering the title of this thread is "Ottawa intercity bus terminal relocation." We are just way off topic.

Cost of housing =\= cost of shelter.

Easy for us to say as someone who bought our homes before the skyrocketing real estate prices that future generations should only ever be able to rent their home.

We don't build transit to facilitate real estate ownership. And if we did, then what is being advocated for here, would literally result in transit induced sprawl.

We should be building transit to facilitate transportation based on where people live, not based on where we want them to live. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a free country, not under an authoritarian regime.

You have folks like lrt's friend who have zero issues complaining about problems that "somebody" should solve in a forum about the city of Ottawa. The implication is pretty clear.

I will let lrt's friend speak for himself, but I haven't noticed him saying anything about who should be paying for this either.

Last I checked 2-3 bus bays and shelters is hardly expensive. This is what Is argue they should get in exchange for staying out of the core.

Of course you completely ignore the expensive part of your plan, subsidising every trip exurb commuters take on the OCTranspo. Even with the O-Train, they will be bums in seats, forcing Ottawa to buy more trains sooner, with taxpayers dollars. I would rather see their bus go downtown.

No. But that's an irrelevant point, when the City of Toronto gets a whole different deal on transit funding than us. They aren't paying for the $20B LRT network that is being built or the $20B in subways that are also planned for them either.

And how is Toronto getting a "whole different deal on transit funding than us" fair?

Looking at Toronto is really irrelevant here. Our road pattern and traffic congestion is different. And we don't have a highway running through our core.

Thank goodness! For buses to/from the east and south-east we do have Nicholas, which would work pretty well. I do agree that downtown access to/from the west and south-west isn't as good, but Lyon and Kent would work pretty well. Regardless, having the province install HOV lanes (which buses could also use) on the Queensway between the 416 split and the 174 split (even if there was a hole between Kent/Lyon and Nicholas) would help a lot. The province should also be paying for HOV lanes on the 174, but that is a whole other can of worms.

Where do you imagine this bus terminal going?

As I said before, I kind of like the block bound by Slater, Albert, Lyon and Bay, but I suspect the bus has already left the station on that location (pun intended). Beyond that it really depends on what is available if/when the province decides to do it.

Also, we just built a multi-billion dollar LRT to get rid of buses in the core. We're pushing Gatineau to do the same. And now we have to use the freed up space for ex-urban buses? Do you suburbanites hate the city that much?

I am shocked that you have hoped on the ban buses from downtown bandwagon. Say it isn't so! That usually comes from those who want more room to drive their cars downtown.

We shouldn't have been building LRT to "get rid of buses in the core," it should have been to improve transit through the core. Buses are an integral part of public transit.

Define "works" in the context of this statement.

Financially viable to the host city. Transit isn't revenue neutral and the difference is made up by the taxpayers because it is a valuable service to its citizens.

Fare integration is done to encourage transit use and reduce user friction. It isn't necessarily required. But if we're going to force the ex-urban riders to terminate their bus rides at O-Train stations, integration helps with reducing friction. Especially since that transfer rate is going to approach 100% if there are forced transfers at the terminii.

You are the one who is suggesting that we "force the ex-urban riders to terminate their bus rides at O-Train stations" at the expense of the Ottawa taxpayer. Besides, we also don't have the authority to ban their buses from going downtown if we wanted to.

[GeoNerd]

Some people on this forum seem to be obsessed with comparing Ottawa to Toronto. Toronto is not a unit of measurement or the gold standard for Canada/Ontario. The two cities have very different necessities. We wouldn't compare New York's transit needs to Washington DC's to evaluate which services to bring to DC.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Well, Hamilton metro was 450,000 in 1967, so the area wasn't over 3 million, though it was bigger than Ottawa is now. But as has been pointed out, there are lots of places in the world that are under 2 million and have commuter service. And yes Ottawa has trains now (LRT trains), but exactly none of them are commuter trains going to the core, so it's not like the routes that would be served by GO buses are covered by the LRT.

It doesn't take huge numbers of people to justify a bus route. We are talking in the low hundreds of passengers per day. I'm really not sure how arguing against better regional transit, or an integration of modes, is in anyone's interest.

Low hundreds is a pretty significant percent of the population of the towns we’re talking about.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not really considering the title of this thread is "Ottawa intercity bus terminal relocation." We are just way off topic.

Yeah. Because the usual suburban whiners want to turn this into yet another complaint about how they aren't getting one-seat rides to the core.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Easy for us to say as someone who bought our homes before the skyrocketing real estate prices that future generations should only ever be able to rent their home.

1) I own a condo. And we're raising a family in it. So I do put my money where my mouth is.

2) You're not going to solve cost issues with sprawl. What would solve the costs issues is better zoning. I suspect you know this. But in case you didn't, here's an explanation from a Canadian engineer and urban planner living in Amsterdam:

• Video Link

Originally Posted by roger1818

We should be building transit to facilitate transportation based on where people live, not based on where we want them to live.

If you think there's zero relationship between where people want to live and where we make it affordable to live, I don't know what to else to say, other than that you might be clueless about urbanism.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't know about you, but I want to live in a free country, not under an authoritarian regime.

It's funny how those who want others to subsidize their lifestyle always whine about authoritarianism.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I would rather see their bus go downtown.
...
I am shocked that you have hoped on the ban buses from downtown bandwagon. Say it isn't so! That usually comes from those who want more room to drive their cars downtown.
...
As I said before, I kind of like the block bound by Slater, Albert, Lyon and Bay, but I suspect the bus has already left the station on that location (pun intended). Beyond that it really depends on what is available if/when the province decides to do it.

Or how about we focus on all kinds of traffic reduction in the core so that our downtown becomes more pedestrian and bicyclist friendly?

Why exactly do we need to faciliate ex-urbanists traveling to the city, over and above local residents in the core and the rest of this city, which is using the transit network to get downtown?

Originally Posted by roger1818

And how is Toronto getting a "whole different deal on transit funding than us" fair?

Did you miss the part where I said they are paying for their LRTs or most of their subway development? They are also get a $20B regional express rail network paid for by the province on top of everything.

The reality is that Toronto is treated differently. And given that this is the case, planning for any service expansion here, is going to end up substantially falling on the Ottawa ratepayer.

Originally Posted by roger1818

We shouldn't have been building LRT to "get rid of buses in the core," it should have been to improve transit through the core. Buses are an integral part of public transit.

Buses can be an integral part of transit and be inappropriate in the downtown core. Both can be true. We had too many buses in the core. It was poor for the downtown and our transit system. We spent money on rail to solve that. It's solved our transit problem. But for some reason people now think we should facilitate more traffic of all kinds through the core. Why?

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are the one who is suggesting that we "force the ex-urban riders to terminate their bus rides at O-Train stations" at the expense of the Ottawa taxpayer. Besides, we also don't have the authority to ban their buses from going downtown if we wanted to.

I'd prefer not to provide any subsidies at all. And simply put in all kinds of bylaws making transit service to the core challenging enough to compel them to terminate at the rail network end points. But people might consider that a bit hostile.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

Well, Hamilton metro was 450,000 in 1967, so the area wasn't over 3 million, though it was bigger than Ottawa is now. But as has been pointed out, there are lots of places in the world that are under 2 million and have commuter service. And yes Ottawa has trains now (LRT trains), but exactly none of them are commuter trains going to the core, so it's not like the routes that would be served by GO buses are covered by the LRT.

It doesn't take huge numbers of people to justify a bus route. We are talking in the low hundreds of passengers per day. I'm really not sure how arguing against better regional transit, or an integration of modes, is in anyone's interest.

The GTHA was more than just the City of Toronto and Hamilton. Add up Peel, York, Durham, Oshawa, etc. Easily over 3M in 1967.

And as acottawa said, low hundreds is pretty significant. I don't think CRT even got 500 riders per day pre-Covid.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Some people on this forum seem to be obsessed with comparing Ottawa to Toronto. Toronto is not a unit of measurement or the gold standard for Canada/Ontario. The two cities have very different necessities. We wouldn't compare New York's transit needs to Washington DC's to evaluate which services to bring to DC.

Thank you.

And worse than the comparisons, they seem determined for this region to emulate the sprawl seen in the GTA by facilitating it. This time through transit.

You folks don't think the current levels of rush hour traffic are good enough or something?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The GTHA was more than just the City of Toronto and Hamilton. Add up Peel, York, Durham, Oshawa, etc. Easily over 3M in 1967.

And as acottawa said, low hundreds is pretty significant. I don't think CRT even got 500 riders per day pre-Covid.

We are off topic, but the comparison to Toronto came from you. The Toronto metropolitan area includes Peel, York and most of Durham. It was 2.2 million in 1967.

I would say that if a very limited service from Rockland can get 500 riders per day, that would suggest that a better, more integrated service would easily be viable.

For the record, I live downtown and have absolutely no stake in the commuter game. I just strongly support integrated regional transportation in principle, and this argument that good transit leads to sprawl is a new one for me. I've never seen anything suggesting that before. Do you have anything backing up the claim that commuter bus lines lead to sprawl?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah. Because the usual suburban whiners want to turn this into yet another complaint about how they aren't getting one-seat rides to the core.

This is not about having a one seat ride. It is about not wanting to have city taxpayers subsidise the transit of those who don't live in the city. Something you seem to be two faced about.

1) I own a condo. And we're raising a family in it. So I do put my money where my mouth is.

Last I checked, a condo is a home and I seem to remember (correct me if I am wrong) you saying that you bought it about 10 years ago, before housing prices went crazy in Ottawa.

2) You're not going to solve cost issues with sprawl. What would solve the costs issues is better zoning. I suspect you know this. But in case you didn't, here's an explanation from a Canadian engineer and urban planner living in Amsterdam:

• Video Link

That is a great video series. I have been watching it for a while and saw that video a while back. If you listen carefully, he is just a critical of condos as he is of sprawl (high rises residences kill a community as much, as urban sprawl). What he is talking about the "missing middle." It is that medium density housing that makes cities more livable.

I totally agree that we need fewer luxury condos and less sprawling suburbia and more medium density housing.

If you think there's zero relationship between where people want to live and where we make it affordable to live, I don't know what to else to say, other than that you might be clueless about urbanism.

Do you even read my posts? I said there is a strong relationship between affordability of housing and where people want to live. You are the one who seems to be taking the Marie Antoinette view of housing prices (your attitude screams, "I bought a condo when they were affordable, screw everyone else who wants to buy a home.").

It's funny how those who want others to subsidize their lifestyle always whine about authoritarianism.

It isn't about subsidizing lifestyle. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to say.

Or how about we focus on all kinds of traffic reduction in the core so that our downtown becomes more pedestrian and bicyclist friendly?

I agree with you there and the best way to do that is to have more people use transit instead of cars, not banning buses from downtown.

Why exactly do we need to faciliate ex-urbanists traveling to the city, over and above local residents in the core and the rest of this city, which is using the transit network to get downtown?

I never said that they were a higher priority. I am just saying that they shouldn't be ignored and treated like 3rd class citizens.

Did you miss the part where I said they are paying for their LRTs or most of their subway development? They are also get a $20B regional express rail network paid for by the province on top of everything.

The reality is that Toronto is treated differently. And given that this is the case, planning for any service expansion here, is going to end up substantially falling on the Ottawa ratepayer.

You said, "They aren't paying for the $20B LRT network that is being built or the $20B in subways that are also planned for them either."

Buses can be an integral part of transit and be inappropriate in the downtown core. Both can be true. We had too many buses in the core. It was poor for the downtown and our transit system. We spent money on rail to solve that. It's solved our transit problem. But for some reason people now think we should facilitate more traffic of all kinds through the core. Why?

There is a balance. We had too many buses before. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any buses now.

I'd prefer not to provide any subsidies at all. And simply put in all kinds of bylaws making transit service to the core challenging enough to compel them to terminate at the rail network end points. But people might consider that a bit hostile.

Not sure what type of ultra capitalistic society would result from no subsidies at all. What it is actually sounding like is you don't want any subsidies that you won't personally gain anything from.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

This is not about having a one seat ride. It is about not wanting to have city taxpayers subsidise the transit of those who don't live in the city. Something you seem to be two faced about.

Hardly. I don't want to subsidize them. Nor do I want their buses downtown making our traffic situation worse. And a big part of that consideration is the slippery slope. If you're getting a one-seat ride from Arnprior and more square footage, why would you buy in Stittsville? I don't want to see these places grow to 100k and the whole region ending up choking on traffic. Because that is exactly what will happen given our inability to build anything by car-dependent sprawl (especially the case in all these exurbs, which is often their selling feature).

Originally Posted by roger1818

Last I checked, a condo is a home and I seem to remember (correct me if I am wrong) you saying that you bought it about 10 years ago, before housing prices went crazy in Ottawa.



That is a great video series. I have been watching it for a while and saw that video a while back. If you listen carefully, he is just a critical of condos as he is of sprawl (high rises residences kill a community as much, as urban sprawl). What he is talking about the "missing middle." It is that medium density housing that makes cities more livable.

I totally agree that we need fewer luxury condos and less sprawling suburbia and more medium density housing.



Do you even read my posts? I said there is a strong relationship between affordability of housing and where people want to live. You are the one who seems to be taking the Marie Antoinette view of housing prices (your attitude screams, "I bought a condo when they were affordable, screw everyone else who wants to buy a home.").

Let's be clear. People aren't moving to Renfrew, Embrun, Navan, Smiths Falls, etc because they want cheap housing. They aren't buying condos out there. They are buying houses out there. So effectively, what's being asked here is that we facilitate transit improvements for them, so that they can get more square footage for their $. They can easily spend the same amount in the coverage area of OC Transpo. They might not get the same square footage and acreage though. And this is before we get into the fact that you seem to have this strange idea that affordable housing is equal to lower cost home ownership. Apparently the idea that we should direct policy toward renters in the city over exurban home owners is beyond you.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It isn't about subsidizing lifestyle. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to say.

But it is. Specifically, offloading the externality caused by their bus traffic.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree with you there and the best way to do that is to have more people use transit instead of cars, not banning buses from downtown.

Let's be clear. I didn't say anything about banning all buses from the core. Just those ex-urban commuter buses.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not sure what type of ultra capitalistic society would result from no subsidies at all. What it is actually sounding like is you don't want any subsidies that you won't personally gain anything from.

Where did I say no subsidies for transit at all? I just said no subsidies for transit services to those who don't live in the city and pay taxes here. If the Government of Ontario provides it? Fine. If we have to spend a few thousand putting in bus bays and a bus shelter or two at each of the terminii, sure. But that should be where it ends.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

We are off topic, but the comparison to Toronto came from you. The Toronto metropolitan area includes Peel, York and most of Durham. It was 2.2 million in 1967.

I would say that if a very limited service from Rockland can get 500 riders per day, that would suggest that a better, more integrated service would easily be viable.

For the record, I live downtown and have absolutely no stake in the commuter game. I just strongly support integrated regional transportation in principle, and this argument that good transit leads to sprawl is a new one for me. I've never seen anything suggesting that before. Do you have anything backing up the claim that commuter bus lines lead to sprawl?

Induced demand is very well accepted, and unlike what most people think does not just apply to Highways.

Providing subsidized GO transit style system will weigh into the decision for those looking for a place to live that suits there style choice. To a degree where it will make the choice to live afar a more viable choice and those inducing demand for housing in there style choice near these towns.

Also you ask for something to back up this claim that commuter bus systems induce sprawl, while literally mentioning Rockland a place that is sprawling, and mating it easier to live there and work in the city will only increase demand. Which again is being built in the style choice of these commuters which is SFH on if possible large lots, forcing cars to be used for every other time one leaves there home.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

The Toronto metropolitan area includes Peel, York and most of Durham. It was 2.2 million in 1967.

You're mixing up the population and terminology here.

The old Metro Toronto (not the census metropolitan area) had about 2 million alone when GO was launched (extrapolating between census of 1.8M in 1961 and 2.1M in 1971). Hamilton was probably at a quarter million. Add in the rest of the GTA and it was over 3M by the time GO was launched.

Originally Posted by phil235

I would say that if a very limited service from Rockland can get 500 riders per day, that would suggest that a better, more integrated service would easily be viable.

This report is a bit dated. But in 2014, they were looking at 15 000 riders per month:

http://www.clarence-rockland.com/images/crtreport.pdf

So that's about 500 riders per day. Across their entire transit system. They are about to get less when Stage 2 opens. Why use CRT when you can drive to Trim and park for free and ride OC Transpo? And just like we'll have made it easier to move to an exurb and pay no taxes to the City of Ottawa while getting a salary here and even benefiting from the transit system.

Originally Posted by phil235

For the record, I live downtown and have absolutely no stake in the commuter game. I just strongly support integrated regional transportation in principle, and this argument that good transit leads to sprawl is a new one for me. I've never seen anything suggesting that before. Do you have anything backing up the claim that commuter bus lines lead to sprawl?

Here's a simple thought exercise. Would the GTA have sprawled out as much as it did without GO or would they have been forced to densify if the only form of transit expansion was subway extensions? Compare the Golden Horseshoe to the Lower Mainland and you'll see the difference here.

[lrt's friend]

Perhaps, we should have a regional transit thread for this discussion.

I must say that as our regional communities grow faster and faster and urban housing becomes unaffordable for more and more people, we should be supporting a regional transit plan.

This should not fall on city taxpayers. The ideal would have provincial participation so that a regional system would not be ad hock, but if absolutely necessary, it would be covered by each municipality. Having individual municipalities involved has not been an overwhelming success to date, however.

Furthermore, service needs to be to downtown, otherwise, we are asking for overwhelming failure. That is still the primary destination where parking is expensive and in short supply. Few will want to take local transit to reach a regional bus route in the suburbs where some riders will miss connections for the one or two outgoing trips per day. All it would take is a hiccup in the Confederation Line, which we all know will happen sooner or later.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're mixing up the population and terminology here.

The old Metro Toronto (not the census metropolitan area) had about 2 million alone when GO was launched (extrapolating between census of 1.8M in 1961 and 2.1M in 1971). Hamilton was probably at a quarter million. Add in the rest of the GTA and it was over 3M by the time GO was launched.


Here's a simple thought exercise. Would the GTA have sprawled out as much as it did without GO or would they have been forced to densify if the only form of transit expansion was subway extensions? Compare the Golden Horseshoe to the Lower Mainland and you'll see the difference here.

No, I'm talking about census metropolitan area. Here is a link the provides the 2.2 million population for 1967 - https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/20402/toronto/population The same link puts the Hamilton metro at 450k that year.

A "thought exercise" is really just an opinion. I'm interested in research that suggests that regional transit induces sprawl. It may exist, but I haven't seen it.

The biggest factor in Toronto's sprawl was the highways, not GO. You can't use the Lower Mainland as a comparator - the geography is completely different.

[Truenorth00]

Cost is only half of it. We should be asking questions about sprawl and sustainability too. The solution to higher housing costs shouldn't just be to dial up sprawl.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Induced demand is very well accepted, and unlike what most people think does not just apply to Highways.

Providing subsidized GO transit style system will weigh into the decision for those looking for a place to live that suits there style choice. To a degree where it will make the choice to live afar a more viable choice and those inducing demand for housing in there style choice near these towns.

Also you ask for something to back up this claim that commuter bus systems induce sprawl, while literally mentioning Rockland a place that is sprawling, and mating it easier to live there and work in the city will only increase demand. Which again is being built in the style choice of these commuters which is SFH on if possible large lots, forcing cars to be used for every other time one leaves there home.

Induced demand is something entirely different than sprawl. Yes people will be induced to take the bus, but that doesn't mean that they won't live in compact developments around stations.

I'm not asking for your opinion on transit creating sprawl. I'm asking for research that supports the claim.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

A "thought exercise" is really just an opinion. I'm interested in research that suggests that regional transit induces sprawl. It may exist, but I haven't seen it.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be as much literature, because the whole focus of study has been around how auto culture drives sprawl.

There are some urban planning rules of thumb though where travel times between transit and traffic tend to converge. People also tend to move such that they get the most real estate for a commute of around of 45-60 mins.