Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

Well, actually you can. Provided you are rich enough and (often) have the right connections.

I do think that many other countries do do planning way better than we do, but one of the reasons that enables this is their ingrained elitism and socio-economic stratification and polarization.

These aren't always good things either.

[lrt's friend]

Running an hourly bus service between Carleton Place and Kanata Centrum and a couple of commuter runs to downtown is not going to destroy Ottawa.

It is also not going to be the determining factor on choosing to live in Carleton Place.

If we see wholesale fleeing from Ottawa to these periphery towns, the City of Ottawa needs to do some serious sole searching. Why is urban or even suburban life worse than living 40 or 50 km from the city? It suggests that the living environment is not satisfying enough people.

We should stop looking down our noses at people living in rural Eastern Ontario, nor should we be doing so for people choosing to live on more than a miniscule city lot. As I have said repeatedly, we live in a free society.

[acottawa]

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.

Many rural communities don't have sewers or municipal water supplies, so there are minimum lot sizes for septic and minimum distances for wells that make density difficult.

I think there have been various attempts to build various kinds of communities to replicate the old streetcar suburbs. As far as I know, none have really succeeded. I don't think people in the suburbs are willing to live the kind of car-free lifestyle that would make these types of neighbourhoods viable.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by 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.

For the record, I'm very concerned about sprawl and think that the Toronto hinterlands are an absolute disaster. I just don't see regional transit as being a big contributor to that.

I do think that promoting strong transit links within our region makes for a stronger region and central city overall. Debating what is appropriate is legitimate, but I'm assuming that we can agree that right now we are far short of what is optimal, and whatever we (whatever level of government that is) invest in, we should be doing it in the context of a long term plan for the system.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Running an hourly bus service between Carleton Place and Kanata Centrum and a couple of commuter runs to downtown is not going to destroy Ottawa.

It always starts out as "a few".

It is also not going to be the determining factor on choosing to live in Carleton Place. [/quote]

You think people don't consider their commute when looking at where to live?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we see wholesale fleeing from Ottawa to these periphery towns, the City of Ottawa needs to do some serious sole searching. Why is urban or even suburban life worse than living 40 or 50 km from the city? It suggests that the living environment is not satisfying enough people.

Thank to a heavily suburbanized council making this city shittier everyday while driving up housing costs (with tons of SFH exclusive zoning) and taxes (thanks to the abundance of low density).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We should stop looking down our noses at people living in rural Eastern Ontario, nor should we be doing so for people choosing to live on more than a miniscule city lot. As I have said repeatedly, we live in a free society.

Nobody is looking down them. Those of us who care about the city aren't down to have their lifestyle subsidized (directly or indirectly). If you want to go live in a small town, go enjoy that idyllic lifestyle that you crave. Why do you want to live out there and still commute to the city daily?

[lrt's friend]

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.

First of all, rural Ontario is dying, so what you are suggesting is not sustainable. If any place is being hollowed out, it is rural Ontario. So, exurban people are a blessing to these small towns. They have helped stabilize these communities.

As far as sucking on Ottawa's teat, who cares? This is too much theoretical thinking. Ottawa does not exist in isolation, and never will. Visitors and commuters to Ottawa support the economy in other ways than taxes. Do we return the favour to these small towns to the same degree? They also have expenses to pay.

What did you think before amalgamation? Gloucester was sucking on Ottawa's teat at that time by this manner of thinking. But Gloucester was a whole lot better financially managed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

For the record, I'm very concerned about sprawl and think that the Toronto hinterlands are an absolute disaster. I just don't see regional transit as being a big contributor to that.

Go look at the garages that cost tens of millions dollars that GO is building and then tell me that with a straight face.

https://seanmarshall.ca/2015/11/12/go-transit-and-the-high-cost-of-free-parking/

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

First of all, rural Ontario is dying, so what you are suggesting is not sustainable. If any place is being hollowed out, it is rural Ontario. So, exurban people are a blessing to these small towns. They have helped stabilize these communities.

Exurbs with tens of thousands of residents aren't "rural" regardless of what they say or identify as.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Gloucester was sucking on Ottawa's teat at that time by this manner of thinking. But Gloucester was a whole lot better financially managed.

Gloucester was part of RMOC. Russell isn't.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Go look at the garages that cost tens of millions dollars that GO is building and then tell me that with a straight face.

https://seanmarshall.ca/2015/11/12/go-transit-and-the-high-cost-of-free-parking/

That article says that parking at GO stations shouldn't be free. It doesn't say anything about sprawl.

You seem to think that ex-urban development isn't going to happen if we don't have regional transportation. I think that it's just a question of which mode of travel will be used.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

That article says that parking at GO stations shouldn't be free. It doesn't say anything about sprawl.

They aren't driving to these garages from a km away. Just saying.

Originally Posted by phil235

You seem to think that ex-urban development isn't going to happen if we don't have regional transportation. I think that it's just a question of which mode of travel will be used.

Hardly. I recognize it's going to happen. I think building a whole regional bus system, with a downtown terminal is pouring gas on the proverbial fire though.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nobody is looking down them.

"We're talking about a culture where everyone drives around with F150s with truck nuts on them."

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

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.

Wrong again. But in the more distant past, my family helped to feed city residents. They were market gardeners in what is now pretty central Ottawa. But modern supermarket retail supply chains have long killed out local market gardens that used to surround the city.

How is it a pipe dream? Aren't we planning to build LRT to all the main suburbs? The problem is that we have gotten in the habit of building roads first, then housing, then expand roads and much later transit. We have got the sequence wrong. We build for car dependence and hope much later that a couple will use transit to commute.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It always starts out as "a few".

It is also not going to be the determining factor on choosing to live in Carleton Place.

You think people don't consider their commute when looking at where to live?



Thank to a heavily suburbanized council making this city shittier everyday while driving up housing costs (with tons of SFH exclusive zoning) and taxes (thanks to the abundance of low density).



Nobody is looking down them. Those of us who care about the city aren't down to have their lifestyle subsidized (directly or indirectly). If you want to go live in a small town, go enjoy that idyllic lifestyle that you crave. Why do you want to live out there and still commute to the city daily?

Councillors serve the interests of their residents. What do you expect them to do in a democracy? It sounds like you want to bulldoze Alta Vista and Elmvale Acres. Even Overbrook, for that matter. If we kick those people out, where do you think people will go to find the same lifestyle. The exurbs?

Maybe we should start talking about building apartment buildings in Rockcliffe, the most offensive location for land wastage in the city.

But you are looking down your nose at them, because you want to punish them in various ways for living where they choose to live. Everybody has differing lifestyle priorities and we should respect that. In fact, diversity makes for a more interesting city and district.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

"We're talking about a culture where everyone drives around with F150s with truck nuts on them."

Yeah, exactly! It may not be my lifestyle, but what is wrong with it?

I personally like to garden, so I have a bit of property to indulge in it. I don't expect everybody to have the same interest, but don't criticize me for my choice.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exurbs with tens of thousands of residents aren't "rural" regardless of what they say or identify as.



Gloucester was part of RMOC. Russell isn't.

So? Municipal boundaries are artificial.

As I have said, we live in a free society, therefore, how do you restrict people from choosing to live in Kemptville? We can't.

I will tell you that we have built expressways to various periphery towns that helped people to commute. We also chose to rip up rail lines that used to serve those same towns. But even those were more complicated choices.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

First of all, rural Ontario is dying, so what you are suggesting is not sustainable. If any place is being hollowed out, it is rural Ontario. So, exurban people are a blessing to these small towns. They have helped stabilize these communities.

Exurbanization pushes out existing rural residents and existing rural businesses, so it isn't rural anymore.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

So? Municipal boundaries are artificial.

We aren't talking about boundaries.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As I have said, we live in a free society, therefore, how do you restrict people from choosing to live in Kemptville? We can't.

We can't stop them. We can make sure they carry the full cost of the decision to live there though.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I will tell you that we have built expressways to various periphery towns that helped people to commute. We also chose to rip up rail lines that used to serve those same towns. But even those were more complicated choices.

And now we should make it worse by facilitating more commuting?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Exurbanization pushes out existing rural residents and existing rural businesses, so it isn't rural anymore.

Of course, people move around. I could say the same thing about Gloucester and Nepean. What happened to all the old farm families? But a deteriorating economy also pushes people out, so new families also preserve old businesses.

What you are talking about is change. We all know that change is impossible to avoid. We can't avoid people moving to small town Eastern Ontario. The services offered should reflect those changes, rather than saying, NO, you can't have that because ........ (some theoretical preferences being applied to other people).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Councillors serve the interests of their residents. What do you expect them to do in a democracy?

Indeed. Which is why exactly why amalgamation was a bad idea. It's looking worse in Ottawa than Toronto these days.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Maybe we should start talking about building apartment buildings in Rockcliffe, the most offensive location for land wastage in the city.

We should. There should be no exclusive R1 anywhere in the city. Let people build what they want on their land.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But you are looking down your nose at them, because you want to punish them in various ways for living where they choose to live. Everybody has differing lifestyle priorities and we should respect that. In fact, diversity makes for a more interesting city and district.

Hardly. They can live their lives just fine. I don't want them fucking up my city and region.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We aren't talking about boundaries.



We can't stop them. We can make sure they carry the full cost of the decision to live there though.



And now we should make it worse by facilitating more commuting?

There is no reasonable mechanism to direct taxpayer costs exactly fairly.

It is not your concern if Rockland decides to offer a commuter bus service if it is funded by Rockland taxpayers.