Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by phil235

This idea that transit begets sprawl is very bizzare to me. The alternative is having all of these people from outlying areas drive into the city to work. Even if they all go to terminus stations, it still means a lot more more car miles and a lot fewer transit miles.

Exactly. Families do not move to rural areas because it has bus access to the city. They move there for the quieter lifestyle, more family friendly areas and more personal space. Or maybe they grew up in that type of environment and want to expose their children to it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

What an absolutely misguided comment. I think you lack some knowledge on how cities function. You look at the city from a very small town/country point of view. Can I assume you aren't from the city?

1) "low quality high rises"? You do realize that modern high rises are built to high standards and inspected throughout construction. Meanwhile SFH are quickly thrown together using dated construction techniques, cheap low-end materials, and chainsaw precision. If anything is low quality it is the modern cookie cutter SFH.

2) Governments should 100% step in and regulate the housing market. The government will screw it up? Look what private business has done. We are in a national housing crisis. We shouldn't just be allowed to build whatever we want, wherever we want. Look at what that has done to some American cities that are sprawling out indefinitely.

3) Why do you equate living in a high rise with living in the "projects". You do realize wealthy people around the world live in high rises, even here in Ottawa. Your idea of living in a poorly built SFH outside of the city = wealth is very backwards. It seems you have drank the suburban-dream marketing koolaid.

4) We should be tolling highways and making urban transit free. We should not be awarding people from buying cheap suburban/exurban homes and commuting. If you want to live 50 miles outside the city and think of city living as "an urban prison" then maybe the city isn't for you. Perhaps you'd be better suited to a Cornwall, kingston, or Peterborough, where you can more easily live a country lifestyle.

It's well documented that the modern suburbs were the biggest misallocation of resources in world history. They have destroyed the prosperity cities across North America. If it wasn't for urban tax payers subsidizing your suburban/exurban lifestyle you would be paying astronomical property taxes. This is a trend that cannot continue and governments are finally beginning to come to this reality. If you think Ottawa is too urban now, just wait. It needs to get way more urban and strictly regulate suburban growth/SFH construction.

But this discussion has gotten way off topic.

We see everyday that housing affordability is in decline. So, what is the alternative for the growing numbers who cannot buy a home? It is cheap, second class rental housing or subsidized (government and taxpayer supported) housing. This is exactly what I am talking about. Not the elite that are on the sunshine list. So while the price of urban housing is going out of control, where will people go? We impose all kinds of controls within the city boundaries on housing, it is no wonder prices are going nuts and why people are looking elsewhere. It is fine to place controls on housing but the outcome is higher prices. But, we are free society so we should support choices people make. That is why I brought up housing in communist countries. Eliminate choice and this is what you get. I have toured Poland and the relief of not living in a such a regulated society was widespread.

Yes, SFH may be built cheaply, but what about condos? I have read about how condo fees also skyrocket after the infrastructure starts to age, especially modern, mostly glass buildings. Everything is built more cheaply compared to years ago despite the building code.

Our problem with urban, suburban, exurban design is based on the choices we have made since 1950. Almost everything has been focused on auto-dependence and auto-dependence is growing today despite what we have learned over the decades. We didn't need to go this route, but it was widespread throughout North America. It was the norm to build highways and boulevards, and shopping centres with massive parking lots and it is still the norm today. At the same time, we have de-emphasized public transit, and while we are paying lip service by spending billions on LRT, we still design everything for the automobile. So, this spending on LRT is going to be wasted to some degree because for most, it is not an attractive alternative. This is why I have spoken for years about a transit grid producing a better outcome over the hub and spoke model that we have adopted recently.

I am sorry but free urban transit is never going to be a solution, because your definition will no doubt benefit such a small portion of the population. Free transit means it is an entirely municipal expense and as we are now seeing, when expenses need to be cut, service will be cut. American cities are notorious for offering low fare transit but the outcome is uniformly poor service.

Your guess is wrong. I am an Ottawa native and my family has lived here for generations.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It depends how it is used. If it is bus services for rural areas then I think that could be positive if it is reasonably cost effective. If it is exurban commuter lines then not so much.

Sounds like this funding is for CRT type and smaller types of service.

I detest them for the sprawl aspect. But that is an avenue of funding for these services that at least avoids any burden on city ratepayers. Still sucks that we pay with provincial and federal taxes for this....

[lrt's friend]

The more we design our suburbs and rural communities for auto dependence, the more unaffordable everything becomes. By designing for less auto dependence, we can design our communities more compactly without necessarily eliminating housing choices. The problem is that we have failed to build a new community that is based around transit instead of highways since the days of streetcars. I think this is the hope with 15 minute communities but I am not holding my breathe. This concept will also likely be compromised.

[Acajack]

Having nice small towns and villages in the wider regional periphery that are accessible by multiple modes of transportation doesn't seem like it's mutually exclusive from having a dynamic big central city.

In fact it's pretty much the norm worldwide I'd say.

Interconnectivity between the core city and outer areas (beyond the immediate suburbs) actually greatly contributes to the vitality of the inner city itself.

People seem to have the view that it's a zero-sum-game and that when Kemptville (not that I am necessarily a Kemptville booster) wins, somehow Ottawa automatically loses.

This mindset largely ignores just how many critical interdependencies exist within a large metropolitan region and even the areas just beyond its limits.

If one looks at the writing on the wall, the office, commercial and employment function of "the city" as we've know it for all of our lives, is poised to take a pretty big hit, and I wonder if it's really logical to argue against stuff that will make it easier for even more people living on the outskirts to come into the city more often to shop, dine, play and be entertained.

If a Kemptville family comes into Ottawa (regardless of transportation mode) to shop for shoes at Glebe Trotters or Letellier, that's a bigger plus for the city than if they do the same at the Walmart on Hwy 43. (Not sure if there is actually a Walmart there.)

Let's also not forget teenagers who are a big segment of the consumer base and who use public transport quite a bit.

[lrt's friend]

I detest them for the sprawl aspect. But that is an avenue of funding for these services that at least avoids any burden on city ratepayers. Still sucks that we pay with provincial and federal taxes for this....

It sounds like you detest rural communities in general. Just remember where our food comes from and that exurban residents support rural community businesses to keep them viable.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The question is which taxpayer..

The main reason people are arguing with each other on here over who pays what and saying they don't want to pay for others and blablabla, is because higher order governments aren't doing their jobs and taking care of this stuff like they would in most other places.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The more we design our suburbs and rural communities for auto dependence, the more unaffordable everything becomes. By designing for less auto dependence, we can design our communities more compactly without necessarily eliminating housing choices. The problem is that we have failed to build a new community that is based around transit instead of highways since the days of streetcars. I think this is the hope with 15 minute communities but I am not holding my breathe. This concept will also likely be compromised.

This ain't Europe. None of our rural communities show any interest at all in compact urban forms.

We aren't even talk about folks who just drive cars. We're talking about a culture where everyone drives around with F150s with truck nuts on them. A handful of buses per day ain't changing that. Will only make it cheaper and easier for more folks to join them.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It sounds like you detest rural communities in general. Just remember where our food comes from and that exurban residents support rural community businesses to keep them viable.

I like rural communities that are actually, you know rural. These exurban communities seeking to attract all kinds of commuters and offering up cheap half acre lots have no interest in being rural. They just want to suck on Ottawa's teat while not paying taxes here.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

When there's people talking about building a bus terminal for them in the core, somebody is subsidizing them. So hardly a strawman.

The strawman is that you keep insisting that the funding must come from the city's purse.

Now you've gotten to mixing up suburbs and exurbs. While Ottawa has imposed much tighter zoning on suburbs, it has no control over those exurbs. We should be striving to develop enough of our suburbs to house all that growth within 20-30km of downtown. Not jumping right to discussions about how to facilitate easier 50 km commutes.

Have a look at what is being build these days in Carleton Place. Yes they are still building singles, but they are also building a lot of Townhomes.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This ain't Europe. None of our rural communities show any interest at all in compact urban forms.

We aren't even talk about folks who just drive cars. We're talking about a culture where everyone drives around with F150s with truck nuts on them. A handful of buses per day ain't changing that. Will only make it cheaper and easier for more folks to join them.

I don't have any illusions about the rural areas around Ottawa being like the Home Counties around London, but this is a hugely unfair caricatured exaggeration.

You really need to get out beyond the Greenbelt more.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The main reason people are arguing with each other on here over who pays what and saying they don't want to pay for others and blablabla, is because higher order governments aren't doing their jobs and taking care of this stuff like they would in most other places.

It's more than that though. In the rest of the world they have rural and regional transport. But that doesn't mean you can roll up and put down a 3000 sqft bungalow with a quarter acre of turf on your half acre lot. They have a ton of rules on development in their satellite communities and work a lot harder than we do to avoid sprawl.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I like rural communities that are actually, you know rural. These exurban communities seeking to attract all kinds of commuters and offering up cheap half acre lots have no interest in being rural. They just want to suck on Ottawa's teat while not paying taxes here.

You almost sound like a right-winger here!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't have any illusions about the rural areas around Ottawa being like the Home Counties around London, but this is a hugely unfair caricatured exaggeration.

You really need to get out beyond the Greenbelt more.

With more than half my military career in places like Trenton, Moose Jaw, etc. I have plenty of experience.

Yeah, it's a bit of an exaggerated statement. But it's a lot closer to the truth than the idea that all these folks want to move to the exurbs just so they can buy small cottage homes and have a quiet bus ride into work in the morning.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You almost sound like a right-winger here!

I'm a pragmatist, an urbanist and an environmentalist. I really don't care which side of the spectrum good policy comes from.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

With more than half my military career in places like Trenton, Moose Jaw, etc. I have plenty of experience.

.

Trenton and Moose Jaw aren't commuting distance from Ottawa. Not even saying that the latter and former are "filled with rednecks", but Rockland and Kemptville most definitely are not.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Trenton and Moose Jaw aren't commuting distance from Ottawa. Not even saying that the latter and former are "filled with rednecks", but Rockland and Kemptville most definitely are not.

Yeah. They are filled with super-suburbanites. Those that want an extra 1000 sqft and 0.2 acres more for 10% less than what they'd pay in Barrhaven.

Why exactly should the rest of us support that?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah, it's a bit of an exaggerated statement. But it's a lot closer to the truth than the idea that all these folks want to move to the exurbs just so they can buy small cottage homes and have a quiet bus ride into work in the morning.

The thing is that people simply don't move to these places with sinister city-killing intentions of any kind.

Providing transportation options (other than driving) to places where people actually live isn't going to kill the city - if we look at most every other place in the world, as I've said it will arguably make the city stronger.

Though sure I'd argue that this is a provincial and not a City of Ottawa responsibility.

[Truenorth00]

Hey. Maybe I just have PTSD from going up a Torontonian and don't want the Supercity to become a giant sprawling mess. But clearly some folks aren't all that concerned about that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah. They are filled with super-suburbanites. Those that want an extra 1000 sqft and 0.2 acres more for 10% less than what they'd pay in Barrhaven.

Why exactly should the rest of us support that?

They also pay into the pot for lots of stuff (much of it "urban") that they don't use.

A society where everyone is obsessed with and angry about every dime they pay for stuff for "the other guy" really sucks.

I do agree that higher order governments do need to take a greater role in planning and development (this is an issue everywhere in Canada) so that things are more sustainable and aesthetic, and have mentioned this many times in the past.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am an Ottawa native and my family has lived here for generations.

I'd be willing to bet when you say Ottawa you are referring to post-amalgamation boundaries. Outer greenbelt, maybe Barrhaven? Richmond? Metcalfe? You have a very outside looking in point of view. Not inside looking out. Your ideas of transit orientated SFH suburbs are a bit of a pipe-dream and again would need to be heavily subsidized by urban tax payers. Large SFH suburbs just don't work, period.