Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That does point to a major challenge, doesn't it? People have fallen in love with big box stores with hectares of parking. How do we convince that there is a better way?

On the other hand, the Glebe (for example) has a main street supermarket and a smaller scale Home Hardware. These things are designed for locals so there is some hope.

I personally love my local Farm Boy and perhaps I am in a minority, that I prefer to shop in smaller stores instead of the local Loblaws Superstore, Costco and Walmart. I like getting in, doing my business and getting out without walking kms to find what I need.

I have no idea. Even in Europe hypermarts have taken over all but the central cores of cities. I think that is how most people prefer to live their lives. They prefer shopping once a week rather than every day and getting the best available price.

I suspect both of those businesses are dependent on people from outside the neighborhood for a lot of their business.

I think the former base in Rockliffe would have been a place for some sort of new urban design, rather than the Little Barrhaven they seem to be building.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have no idea. Even in Europe hypermarts have taken over all but the central cores of cities. I think that is how most people prefer to live their lives. They prefer shopping once a week rather than every day and getting the best available price.

I suspect both of those businesses are dependent on people from outside the neighborhood for a lot of their business.

I think the former base in Rockliffe would have been a place for some sort of new urban design, rather than the Little Barrhaven they seem to be building.

Agreed. A lost opportunity but we knew this was coming. It seems inevitable that we cannot design a transit suburb with urban amenities even in a fairly central location. Of course, you can't build a new neighbourhood with minimal transit and expect to create a 'transit' suburb. Hence, my absolute opposition to paving over the CEF. We will end up with something underwhelming and more poor suburban design.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have no idea. Even in Europe hypermarts have taken over all but the central cores of cities. I think that is how most people prefer to live their lives. They prefer shopping once a week rather than every day and getting the best available price.

I suspect both of those businesses are dependent on people from outside the neighborhood for a lot of their business.

I think the former base in Rockliffe would have been a place for some sort of new urban design, rather than the Little Barrhaven they seem to be building.

Little Barrhaven - very well put. I'm going to use that one if you don't mind.

Definitely a complex issue. I'd say that my neighbourhood is evenly split between those that are loyal to the local stores and those that head out to the suburbs every week to spend an hour and a half and save 15 cents on a broccoli. Generally surveys by BIAs show that the majority of their business comes from the local area, so at least there is a core constituency. shopping local.

Some people are always going to prioritize low prices over everything else, so the only effective approach will be to try to implement policies that capture the real costs of behaviour that has a negative impact on others - probably through taxing driving and big-box development more appropriately.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have no idea. Even in Europe hypermarts have taken over all but the central cores of cities. I think that is how most people prefer to live their lives. They prefer shopping once a week rather than every day and getting the best available price.

I suspect both of those businesses are dependent on people from outside the neighborhood for a lot of their business.

I think the former base in Rockliffe would have been a place for some sort of new urban design, rather than the Little Barrhaven they seem to be building.

We (somewhat rightly) idealize inner city shopping streets in Europe but while they always seem to be holding on, the vast majority of the non-touristy ones are definitely teetering.

Their relative intactness might just be a question of not being as far enough along in the process of inevitable decline.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

But how many people would transfer between the intercity bus and the VIA train?
It should be adjacent to a major transit connection, but it doesn't have to be the train station. Hurdman would be fine, Pimisi would be great, or Bayview...

The number that would transfer between bus and train maybe small, but that is not the point.

Co-location creates opportunity. VIA could, for example, get into the feeder bus game. Especially after HFR. And having boost intercity bus and train in one terminal helps with the sharing of parking facilities, creates more scheduling options, etc.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the former base in Rockliffe would have been a place for some sort of new urban design, rather than the Little Barrhaven they seem to be building.

Yep. This is exactly what I'm talking about. People seem to think that putting up townhouses will solve the problem. And the Rockcliffe development is a great example of why this is a failure. Massive neighborhood. Not much mixed use planned. And not much low rise to boost density. Lots of townhouses. Great. They'll fill an extra bus or two per hour.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You have opposed interlining the Trillium Line in the past. You have stated that you would prefer to invest our money in maximizing the capacity of the C-Line and continue to force everybody to use it instead of investing in something new. You have stated that you would prefer to have a closely parallel line to the C-Line instead of investing in routes that serve other parts of the city.

Correct. I prefer building lines where the ridership justifies it. And I prefer utilizing existing assets to their fullest potential. This maximizes the return on taxpayer subsidies and makes for a more fiscally sustainable transit system. We start building rail lines all over the place that we can't afford and aren't attracting a ton of ridership, the local bus services that you are worried about will be the first to get cut.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

One line cannot possibly do this.

Indeed. Which is why we have two lines in Ottawa. And I suspect we'll have plenty more in the future.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My bigger concern is how we are gutting neighbourhood transit. We cut service in October 2019. We are about to cut service again 'temporarily' in June and we are considering other cuts. I don't believe 'temporary' cuts are temporary considering our planning based almost entirely only on capacity.

And yet, you want to build underutilized fully grade separted infrastructure mere kms from another under-utilized grade separated corridor? Do you not see what that would do to funding of local bus service?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to invest in transit more broadly. Exurban transit is a tiny component, but it needs to work for those few, rather than making guaranteed failure, which is what you have been suggesting.

You don't solve a huge problem by prioritizing low return edge cases first. We aren't going to change public attitudes towards transit ridership by prioritizing exurban bus service improvements over inner city improvements. When people who already take transit aren't rewarded with better service, you're not exactly presenting a great case for those who live further out to ditch their cars.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to support ideas that allow for a general reduction in auto-dependence, even in small ways. Few people have 6 to 10 cars in their driveways. That is a false generalization not much different than everybody in the country are Ford F150 cowboys.

4 of the top 5 selling vehicles in Canada are pickups. With the F series at the very top. The 5th in that mix? The Rav 4. Only two of the top ten are sedans.

https://driving.ca/ford/column/driving-b...canadas-10-best-selling-vehicles-in-2020

So nope, I am not going take back my assertion that pickup culture is very popular in these parts. It sure as shit ain't condo dwelling urbanites driving those pickup trucks.

As to supporting ideas, well yes, we should. But folks like you have repeatedly argue that zoning and density requirements are some crazy commie plot to make everybody live in a shoebox condo. So there's not much hope for these exurbs. Heck, it's still pulling teeth in suburban Ottawa to get them to minimize R1 zoning. And there's still way too much. Particularly near transit infrastructure.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A bus every 10 or 20 minutes, just means that there will be multiple cars in the driveway or on the street. We need to be careful on how we re-develop neighbourhoods, that we are actually improving them and not destroying their character.

And attitudes like this right here is exactly why we'll never have the density to actually support great high frequency transit in this city. Character? What fucking character is there in a bunch of single family homes, mostly populated by aging seniors these days? Character comes from having life on the street. And that requires more residents. The very thing that folks like you oppose in the name of "character".

Honestly, this city would improve exponentially in "character" if every single family detached inside the greenbelt was replaced with a townhome or duplex. The added density would make more mixed use viable and support higher frequencies of transit.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Fair enough, but you have opposed even provincial funding because some of that comes from all taxpayers.

Yes. Because I don't believe in subsidizing lifestyles that are both environmentally destructive and fiscally irresponsible for the region. But at least if the whole province is being suckered, it makes it easier to swallow.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to realize that the Ottawa economic area is increasingly expanding beyond our boundaries. This is a natural result of becoming a larger city, just as Montreal's and Toronto's economic area have expanded beyond both city's boundaries.

We're a city of a million, in a metro of 1.4 million. The very fact that we're 50 km from Stittsville to the end of Orleans should tell you that we have a problem. A properly planned city would have been able to fit that million entirely inside the greenbelt.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As I have pointed out, Ottawa refuses to even serve a major employer within its boundaries, Amazon. What is the impact of that? All employees must arrive by auto, which supports auto dependence even for low paid workers and encourages people to look for lower cost housing outside the city limits.

The avoidance of a massive subsidy to an employer. Let's not forget the city actually did look into it and with employees arriving from all kinds of directions, facilitating bus service would have been ridiculously expensive.

In any event, when we are resource constrained, it's ridiculous to insist on tackling edge cases like this. Amazon wants to build in the boonies? It should be their problem how employees get to work. And they will have to pay employees enough to attract them to that location.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The problem as I see it is the initial design of neighbourhoods. What has been built since the war. Do it better from the beginning. The challenge is when you try to shoe horn different housing types into existing neighbourhoods. This guarantees NIMBYs. The existing home owners inevitably face developers who want to maximize profits and push the limits. It is not just R1 zoning. Hence, housing that almost always exceeds agreed to height limits. No, 4 or 6 stories are not enough. Let's make it 9 or 12 stories.

When developable land is scarce, developers will seek absolutely max out every plot they can get. So yes, it is substantially the amount of R1 zoning. Rezone half the city's R1 to R3 and not only will we not see many high rises built you also will see far less issues of boundary pushing with what is built. Have a look at the city's zoning rules and you'll see how ridiculous R1 actually is:

https://ottawa.ca/en/living-ottawa/laws-...art-6-residential-zones-sections-155-168

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is not so easy to replace SFHs built in the 1950s or 1960s and make for an attractive outcome. The video is overly optimistic in this regard, and where this is successful, it is already neighbourhoods with a diversity of housing or within walking distance of a traditional main street. Where have we actually seen the successful conversion of a car-centric main street to a traditional main street? That is so difficult to achieve.

You have a bad habit for falling back to a bunch of NIMBY excuses. There is no way to put the cart before the horse. It's not possible to make a more traditional main street without having the neighbourhood density to support shops on that main street. Argue against the density for whatever NIMBY cause du jour, and you will never arrive at the end result.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have no idea. Even in Europe hypermarts have taken over all but the central cores of cities. I think that is how most people prefer to live their lives. They prefer shopping once a week rather than every day and getting the best available price.

Yes and no. Sure, there's a lot more large format stores in European suburbs. But that doesn't mean there's no local supermarkets either. Just that the mix is changing a bit. Location also matters. I find that supermarkets in Europe are also substantially better located. Often right near a train station, so you can get out and pick up groceries on your way home. I often wonder, why we didn't push for a grocery store at every station location we built outside the downtown core. We have malls at some. But those, often, don't have grocery stores at them.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Little Barrhaven - very well put. I'm going to use that one if you don't mind.

Go ahead

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

Some people are always going to prioritize low prices over everything else, so the only effective approach will be to try to implement policies that capture the real costs of behaviour that has a negative impact on others - probably through taxing driving and big-box development more appropriately.

I expect there will be some changes in behaviour in the future.

For one, the rise of delivery services is going to substantially change way we shop in the future. In all these discussions about Europe, we also forget how well grocery delivery has done over there. It's incredible. The high cost of land, means that it is cheaper to locate far away in large, ugly warehouses than run large stores with huge parking lots in the city.

I suspect a substantial amount of big box retail will get replaced by this model in the years to come. And for the rest, I am curious to see what higher carbon pricing and generally higher road traffic will do to this habit of driving 15-20 mins to Costco in the future. Combine that with smaller living spaces, and it's going to be even more challenging. There's a reason that the grocery chains are starting to get into "urban format" grocery stores. They see where increasing urban density is heading. Sobeys had started with Urban Fresh and then rebranded all of them as Farm Boy's. Loblaws bought Shopper's Drug Mart to sort of use as a urban grocer/convenience store. Metro is trying out smaller format stores under its own label. Etc.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I expect there will be some changes in behaviour in the future.

For one, the rise of delivery services is going to substantially change way we shop in the future. In all these discussions about Europe, we also forget how well grocery delivery has done over there. It's incredible. The high cost of land, means that it is cheaper to locate far away in large, ugly warehouses than run large stores with huge parking lots in the city.

I suspect a substantial amount of big box retail will get replaced by this model in the years to come. And for the rest, I am curious to see what higher carbon pricing and generally higher road traffic will do to this habit of driving 15-20 mins to Costco in the future. Combine that with smaller living spaces, and it's going to be even more challenging. There's a reason that the grocery chains are starting to get into "urban format" grocery stores. They see where increasing urban density is heading. Sobeys had started with Urban Fresh and then rebranded all of them as Farm Boy's. Loblaws bought Shopper's Drug Mart to sort of use as a urban grocer/convenience store. Metro is trying out smaller format stores under its own label. Etc.

Yeah, those are definitely trends that could change the way people do things in the future. Delivery also relies on roads, so a big increase in delivery vehicles will make it slower and more expensive as time goes on. Because of that, and the desire of most people to pick their own fresh food, I think there will always be a market for urban stores.

There's also the time factor. Having shopped in a super-Loblaws and now in a small urban Metro, I am now much more aware of how much time I was wasting in the big store. Sure I had a choice of 18 sizes of Quaker granola bars, but it literally took me twice as long to shop in the big store. At some point people are going to get better at valuing the time they spend driving to these stores and shopping.

However, on the tax policy issue, one thing that gives big box stores an advantage is the way we tax parking lots. Even a small shift towards taxing them more efficiently would have a big impact on the "savings" that big box stores provide.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

However, on the tax policy issue, one thing that gives big box stores an advantage is the way we tax parking lots. Even a small shift towards taxing them more efficiently would have a big impact on the "savings" that big box stores provide.

Not just grocery stores. A whole lot of land issues would be solved if parking was taxed.

Everytime I walk around with my wife, I point out how much land is wasted on parking. It's become really evident post-covid. To me, any parking worth having inside the Greenbelt is worth being in a parking structure or underground.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not just grocery stores. A whole lot of land issues would be solved if parking was taxed.

Everytime I walk around with my wife, I point out how much land is wasted on parking. It's become really evident post-covid. To me, any parking worth having inside the Greenbelt is worth being in a parking structure or underground.

This (though it also applies outside the Greenbelt)!!! I have said it before but land that is used exclusively for parking and driveways should have to pay a premium on property tax by land area used (so multilevel parking only pays it on the actual land used, not the amount of parking available). Rooftop and underground parking would be exempt (as long as the space above or below serves a valid, alternate purpose).

Space used for occasional parking lots could get a small discount by using a permeable surface to reduce the groundwater runoff (though multilevel parking is still preferable). Shared parking should also be encouraged.

• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

It's not just parking. The amount of front lawn and setbacks is ridiculous.

And for all the new developments that have happened, we don't even see a much space efficient like courtyard homes with pedestrian lanes and perimeter parking.

An example of what I mean:

• Video Link

[roger1818]

We are getting way off topic (I will admit that I have been guilty of it myself). Can we please bring the discussion back to bus and rail transport?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I expect there will be some changes in behaviour in the future.

For one, the rise of delivery services is going to substantially change way we shop in the future. In all these discussions about Europe, we also forget how well grocery delivery has done over there. It's incredible. The high cost of land, means that it is cheaper to locate far away in large, ugly warehouses than run large stores with huge parking lots in the city.

I suspect a substantial amount of big box retail will get replaced by this model in the years to come. And for the rest, I am curious to see what higher carbon pricing and generally higher road traffic will do to this habit of driving 15-20 mins to Costco in the future. Combine that with smaller living spaces, and it's going to be even more challenging. There's a reason that the grocery chains are starting to get into "urban format" grocery stores. They see where increasing urban density is heading. Sobeys had started with Urban Fresh and then rebranded all of them as Farm Boy's. Loblaws bought Shopper's Drug Mart to sort of use as a urban grocer/convenience store. Metro is trying out smaller format stores under its own label. Etc.

Grocery delivery tends to be either paying people to shop at grocery stores on your behalf (which needs all of the same infrastructure, parking, road use, etc) or an Amazon model of large warehouses at the edge of urban areas. Neither of which are good for the urban environment.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Grocery delivery tends to be either paying people to shop at grocery stores on your behalf (which needs all of the same infrastructure, parking, road use, etc) or an Amazon model of large warehouses at the edge of urban areas. Neither of which are good for the urban environment.

Very much debatable.

Warehouses can be built to be a lot more efficient than grocery stores. No aesthetics or climate control for shopper comfort. Large volumes. High automation. And thanks to electric delivery vehicles, it won't have much of a footprint in delivery. Not to mention, a whole lot of processing and warehousing in between gets cut out. Watch this about delivery in New York:

• Video Link

That said, the reason they've taken off in Europe, is land prices. Having a large supermarket, with a large lot in a major city is insanely expensive. It is actually cheaper to go directly from warehouse to consumer.

[roger1818]

An interesting video about suburban TOD. You can easily substitute rail for bus in much of what he says. He doesn't have all the answers, but he certainly does have some valid points.

• Video Link

I like his point at 2:57 about trying to build affordable housing downtown and "it hasn't worked, because no mater how dense you make it, it's never going to be affordable when it has to sit on some of the most expensive land in the region."

[Truenorth00]

We aren't talking about just developing downtown. Ottawa has a whole lot of space inside the Greenbelt and a ton of underutilized or even undeveloped land near existing transit stations.

We seem to always have a ton of lazy excuses for why we have to sprawl out before we even really do serious TOD.

[c_speed3108]

Greyhound will terminate all operations in Canada as of Thursday midnight. It's folding.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/greyhound-canada-to-cut-all-routes-end-operations-1.5426464

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

Greyhound will terminate all operations in Canada as of Thursday midnight. It's folding.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/greyhound-canada-to-cut-all-routes-end-operations-1.5426464

Greyhound Canada to cut all routes, end operations

Brett Bundale, The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, May 13, 2021 12:23PM EDT Last Updated Thursday, May 13, 2021 12:38PM EDT

Greyhound Canada is permanently cutting all bus routes across the country, shutting down the intercity bus carrier's operations in Canada after nearly a century of service.

The motor coach company said its remaining routes in Ontario and Quebec will cease permanently on Thursday.

Its American affiliate, Greyhound Lines, Inc., will continue to operate cross-border routes to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver once the border reopens.

The decision comes a year after Greyhound Canada temporarily suspended all service due to a sharp decline in passengers and mounting travel restrictions amid the first wave of COVID-19.

The bus carrier has struggled for years with declining ridership, increasing competition and deregulation.

But the complete loss of so-called farebox revenue during the pandemic has forced the company to permanently cease operations, said Greyhound Canada senior vice-president Stuart Kendrick.

"It's been a very tough decision and one we've taken with a heavy heart," he told The Canadian Press in an interview. "It's been a lifeline for many Canadians for more than 90 years. This will have a massive impact."

The decision is a blow to rural and remote areas that rely on a patchwork of private intercity bus companies for transportation.

The service has long been part of a network linking smaller communities and big cities, offering an affordable and convenient mode of travel for everyone from essential workers and students to the elderly and backpackers.

Yet the rise in car ownership, ride sharing, discount airlines and urban migration has slowly eroded bus ridership, leading Greyhound Canada to gradually reduce the frequency of some services and cut other routes altogether.

"Private carriers are relying on the farebox revenue to maintain these rural routes," Kendrick said. "When ridership declines, we have a decision to make. We either cut the frequency, exit the rural markets or look for some help."

Citing declining ridership, deregulation and subsidized competition, Greyhound Canada suspended all operations in Western Canada in 2018.

Yet despite the ongoing challenges with its remaining routes, nothing could have prepared the company for the dramatic 95 per cent drop in passengers at the outset of the pandemic, Kendrick said.

Multiple coach bus companies teamed up and approached the federal and provincial governments for financial aid amid mounting COVID-19 restrictions. But Kendrick said they were referred to existing pandemic supports -- what he called "negligible" for the beleaguered passenger transportation industry -- prompting Greyhound Canada to temporarily suspend all service last May.

"There's really been a lack of support," Kendrick said. "We don't get subsidies."

Intercity bus carriers are also competing with publicly funded train and transit systems, he said, putting private companies at a disadvantage.

The Ontario government has also promised to deregulate the intercommunity bus industry starting in July, a move that would end Greyhound Canada's control of certain routes.

"We have had exclusive private bus service on certain corridors," he said, noting that it provided passengers with safe, frequent and affordable service.

"Greyhound Canada's tough decision today is going to have a massive impact on customers, especially those riding in the rural network."

About 260 employees were laid off after Greyhound Canada temporarily ended its passenger service last May. An additional 45 employees will be laid off as a result of the permanent closure, Kendrick said.

The company plans to sell the bus stations it owns, he said. As for its leased properties, some of the agreements have expired or have an "out clause," while it will honour the terms of leases it's obliged to continue paying, Kendrick said.

The company said tickets for travel after Thursday will be refunded. Customers with a valid travel voucher can also request a refund.

All Ontario and Quebec routes that were temporarily suspended in May 2020 will permanently end as of midnight on Thursday. The routes are:

• Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal
• Toronto-London-Windsor
• Sudbury-Ottawa/Toronto
• Toronto-Kitchener/Guelph/Cambridge
• Toronto-Niagara Falls
• Ottawa-Kingston

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 13, 2021.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/greyhound-canada-to-cut-all-routes-end-operations-1.5426464