Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Buggys

We need to encourage & incentivize having children domestically.

As for immigration, we can allow some, but NOT overwhelmingly more than we fund incentivization of having kids domestically. We have to be choosy about who we let in, and focus on those who would being our country net benefits, not just mooch off of existing taxpayers, who are struggling to pay for our own kids

Think about this a bit. An immigrant who comes in might rely on social services for the first 3-4 years as they integrate but then they become working net contributors to society.
But growing up in Canada, I benefited from social services for the first 22 years of my life in subsidized childcare, subsidized health services, free dental until 14, subsidized university, tax breaks for my parents, etc. It has taken me 23 years to become a net contributor to society with a job that pushes me above the poverty line.

An immigrant comes raised and educated on someone else’s dime. And we get to chose people with valuable skills.
A Canadian-born baby will be a drain on ressources for two decades. And even then, there is FAR from a guarantee that that person will end up developing any useful skills (we can all think of examples ).

Have babies for love. Have them because it’s a beautiful thing to watch a human grow. But don’t have them for economic performance - they’re just not a solid financial or societal investment.

[roger1818]

The discussion about immigration vs. birth rates has nothing to do with LRT in Barrhaven. I created a Canada's Immigration Policy thread in the Business, Politics & the Economy forum for continuing this discussion. Please post further replies in that thread.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I think you are being a bit unfair to current suburb design practices... look at River Mist in Barrhaven, or Lakeridge Drive in Orleans. These are not loops and lollipops. They could still use some work integrating commercial uses more tightly with the residential, but overall urban form is an improvement over the 90s and early 2000s.

I know someone who lives very close to the Lakeridge "squares" in Orleans. Aside from an elementary school that is just off one of the squares the area is 100% residential.

There won't ever be any commercial development in those buildings at all, of the sort you see here: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4834...7i13312!8i6656

(Not that Gatineau is a shining example. We totally suck at this too. But this was a rare good move.)

So in terms of running errands, Lakeridge is also no less auto-dependent than any other suburban area in Orleans, Kanata or Barrhaven. There is transit service through the square but it's typical Ottawa commuter transit service for 9-5 commuters. Which is fine for the most part but there isn't any transit service at all between the community and the closest shopping areas which have sprung up in the big box and strip mall style 10-20 min. away on foot near the corner of Tenth Line and Brian Coburn.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know someone who lives very close to the Lakeridge "squares" in Orleans. Aside from an elementary school that is just off one of the squares the area is 100% residential.

There won't ever be any commercial development in those buildings at all, of the sort you see here: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4834...7i13312!8i6656

(Not that Gatineau is a shining example. We totally suck at this too. But this was a rare good move.)

So in terms of running errands, Lakeridge is also no less auto-dependent than any other suburban area in Orleans, Kanata or Barrhaven. There is transit service through the square but it's typical Ottawa commuter transit service for 9-5 commuters. Which is fine for the most part but there isn't any transit service at all between the community and the closest shopping areas which have sprung up in the big box and strip mall style 10-20 min. away on foot near the corner of Tenth Line and Brian Coburn.

Ya, that's why I used it as an example of improved urban form (i.e. street layout), but then went on to comment that Ottawa still isn't very good at integrating commercial into new neighborhoods to improve walkability. The only place I can think of off the top of my head where Ottawa is trying to do this is off of Longfields Drive:

https://goo.gl/maps/upqxk2rQ5yj

I wish Ottawa would attempt something closer to what Toronto suburbs (Markham I guess) did with a couple locations on Bur Oak Avenue...
Here: https://goo.gl/maps/JU1Ve3GuSH32
And here:https://goo.gl/maps/FjmGVwrT9Yv

Time will tell if these locations are successful in the long run, but at least there was an attempt. I see no desire from Ottawa to construct even caricatures of main streets.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Ya, that's why I used it as an example of improved urban form (i.e. street layout), but then went on to comment that Ottawa still isn't very good at integrating commercial into new neighborhoods to improve walkability. The only place I can think of off the top of my head where Ottawa is trying to do this is off of Longfields Drive:

https://goo.gl/maps/upqxk2rQ5yj

I wish Ottawa would attempt something closer to what Toronto suburbs (Markham I guess) did with a couple locations on Bur Oak Avenue...
Here: https://goo.gl/maps/JU1Ve3GuSH32
And here:https://goo.gl/maps/FjmGVwrT9Yv

Time will tell if these locations are successful in the long run, but at least there was an attempt. I see no desire from Ottawa to construct even caricatures of main streets.

Are there any other examples similar to Lakeridge and the others like Longfields in Ottawa?

Because I don't think there are very many, which is why I'd tend to place these in the category of one-off "experiments" as opposed to "this is how we do things from now on".

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Are there any other examples similar to Lakeridge and the others like Longfields in Ottawa?

Because I don't think there are very many, which is why I'd tend to place these in the category of one-off "experiments" as opposed to "this is how we do things from now on".

And topologically, those supposedly improved street layouts are, topologically, the same as pretty much any other suburban development since the end of WWII.

Rectilinear loops and dead ends are topologically identical to curvy ones - the navigation and implicit You Don't Belong Here message is still the same.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Are there any other examples similar to Lakeridge and the others like Longfields in Ottawa?

Because I don't think there are very many, which is why I'd tend to place these in the category of one-off "experiments" as opposed to "this is how we do things from now on".

You're right in a sense, that these are sort of experiments. But experiments are good in planning.

I think one definite trend is the use of window streets versus noise barriers adjacent to arterials or major collectors (Fallowfield versus Strandherd for instance). Another trend is to at least plan density around future transit nodes (difficult to see because usually high density areas are the last to be built in suburbs).

In general I'm arguing the suburbs are becoming more rectilinear or "fused grid". This is maybe equivalent to 60s suburbs design, which is actually a step forward from 70s, 80s and 90s. Suburbs design in my mind went from good -> bad -> terrible -> bad. We are back at bad... but at least we aren't at terrible anymore.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And topologically, those supposedly improved street layouts are, topologically, the same as pretty much any other suburban development since the end of WWII.

Rectilinear loops and dead ends are topologically identical to curvy ones - the navigation and implicit You Don't Belong Here message is still the same.

You are not really looking with eyes open to see the improvements. Streets are more grid-like, which helps maintain north-south / east-west orientation. Locals and collectors dead-end less frequently, and when they do there are often pedestrian links that continue the route. Walking in a newer area like around Chapman Mills Drive is night and day compared to trying to walk in Barrhaven northwest of the VIA track.

River Mist Road runs for over 2 km without ever being blocked or off-set or some other suburban nonsense. That is the equivalent to Churchill Avenue.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

You're right in a sense, that these are sort of experiments. But experiments are good in planning.

I think one definite trend is the use of window streets versus noise barriers adjacent to arterials or major collectors (Fallowfield versus Stranherd for instance). Another trend is to at least plan density around future transit nodes (difficult to see because usually high density areas are the last to be built in suburbs).

In general I'm arguing the suburbs are becoming more rectilinear or "fused grid". This is maybe equivalent to 60s suburbs design, which is actually a step forward from 70s, 80s and 90s. Suburbs design in my mind went from good -> bad -> terrible -> bad. We are back at bad... but at least we aren't at terrible anymore.

Is this what you mean by a window street? (Not a great success if it is one.)

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.44911...2!8i6656?hl=en

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And topologically, those supposedly improved street layouts are, topologically, the same as pretty much any other suburban development since the end of WWII.

Rectilinear loops and dead ends are topologically identical to curvy ones - the navigation and implicit You Don't Belong Here message is still the same.

Loops and dead ends are okay if pathways are installed to allow pedestrians to take a short cut to the collector or aterial that has bus service. We don't need buses on every single street, we just need to make sure the streets that have them are easily accessable from the other streets. Part of the problem is we don't plan the pedestrian network for future expansions. Once a row of houses exists, you can't put add a pathway that wasn't planned for. Occasionally they will put in a future road connection, but I have never seen a future pathway connection added.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Is this what you mean by a window street? (Not a great success if it is one.)

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.44911...2!8i6656?hl=en

Yes. Not perfect, but I'd still maintain they are better than blocking the arterial street off entirely from the residential. You have to admit walking along Tenth Line there would feel better than walking along Hunt Club here:

https://goo.gl/maps/NSTSS4aSAoH2

*Edit, its also better when they don't put up the fence shown in your example.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Yes. Not perfect, but I'd still maintain they are better than blocking the arterial street off entirely from the residential. You have to admit walking along Tenth Line there would feel better than walking along Hunt Club here:

https://goo.gl/maps/NSTSS4aSAoH2

Yes indeed.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Loops and dead ends are okay if pathways are installed to allow pedestrians to take a short cut to the collector or aterial that has bus service. We don't need buses on every single street, we just need to make sure the streets that have them are easily accessable from the other streets. Part of the problem is we don't plan the pedestrian network for future expansions. Once a row of houses exists, you can't put add a pathway that wasn't planned for.

Well, you can, I suppose, if the city were to take advantage of the occasional fire or other unplanned demolotion to create such cut-throughs.

But all the pedestrian shortcuts in the world are not very supportive of land use evolving over time if the underlying topology of the street network is still designed to send the message: Unless You Live Here, You Don't Belong Here.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

You are not really looking with eyes open to see the improvements. Streets are more grid-like, which helps maintain north-south / east-west orientation.

That helps a little, but not very much: it's still impossible for the non-resident to predict whether rectiloopy street X connects to rectiloopy street Y, whether this rectilineally branching street goes to a There or ends in a dead end; whether that grid-like crescent continues somewhere else or just loops back onto the equally rectilinear street that it started from.

Topologically, the language of these new-fangled linear suburbs is no different from their curlier predecessors. The land-use will remain frozen, navigation is no more intuitive.

River Mist Road runs for over 2 km without ever being blocked or off-set or some other suburban nonsense. That is the equivalent to Churchill Avenue.

Except that once you're off Cheesy Name Street in Barrhaven, even if it's linear for 2 km, you're into what? Loops and swirls. The curves may be sharper 90-degree angles, but you do not have the same grid street language that you have in early 20th-century Churchill Avenue and its environs. The message is still, You Don't Belong Here If You Don't Live Here, and Don't Even Think About Doing Anything On This Property That Isn't Housing Someone Who Works Or Plays Elsewhere.

The suburban topology is unchanged.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Well, you can, I suppose, if the city were to take advantage of the occasional fire or other unplanned demolotion to create such cut-throughs.

Assuming there is a "fire or other unplanned demolotion" at a strategecly significant location, the city would still have to work a deal out with the owner and insurance company to buy the land from the owner and then let the owner use the insurance money to buy/build at a new location. I've never heard of that happening, though I guess it theoretically could.

But all the pedestrian shortcuts in the world are not very supportive of land use evolving over time if the underlying topology of the street network is still designed to send the message: Unless You Live Here, You Don't Belong Here.

Agreed. You need collectors and arterials that are at least reasonably straight and go somewhere useful. As for makng them welcoming, newer residential streets seem to have sidewalks on them, which helps a lot. This certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago (or even less).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Assuming there is a "fire or other unplanned demolotion" at a strategecly significant location, the city would still have to work a deal out with the owner and insurance company to buy the land from the owner and then let the owner use the insurance money to buy/build at a new location. I've never heard of that happening, though I guess it theoretically could.

Oh absolutely, the city would still have to work out a deal (or expropriate). And yes, it's theoretical, but in the highly unlikely event the city ever starts engaging in sprawl repair, this is the sort of thing that might be in the toolbox.

Agreed. You need collectors and arterials that are at least reasonably straight and go somewhere useful. As for makng them welcoming, newer residential streets seem to have sidewalks on them, which helps a lot. This certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago (or even less).

I'm a big fan of collectors and arterials that are bent, myself: think Wellington West either side of Parkdale, Bank Street's dogleg at Gladstone, or Beechwood. They are still linear in topology and intuitive to navigate, without giving drivers the straightaway, and creating prospects at the same time.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I'm a big fan of collectors and arterials that are bent, myself: think Wellington West either side of Parkdale, Bank Street's dogleg at Gladstone, or Beechwood. They are still linear in topology and intuitive to navigate, without giving drivers the straightaway, and creating prospects at the same time.

That's why I said "at least reasonably straight." A bend up to about 45 degrees can be a good thing. When it reaches 90 degrees, things become more problematic. For example West Ridge Dr. between Adamson Cres and Mazari Cres does two opposite 90 degree turns in 600 m. To be fair, this design was likely approved by Golbourn Township prior to amaligimation (it was built about the same time as amalgimation).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I always wondered how a Carling LRT would be beneficial if it only ran from Lincoln Fields to Preston. Just two transfers to get downtown from there.

Just shows us how faulty our plans tend to be. Transfers are a necessity but must be contained.

However, we need to move Carling Avenue beyond 1960s motor and strip-mall heaven. How is this accomplished with the status quo even with some modest transit priority?

In the long run, we need more rail routes running into downtown. The Confederation Line is not enough no matter what capacity we design it for. We need more no transfer connections into downtown like our peer cities are now designing. Ottawa is now decades behind because of how we have back tracked on so many plans.

Toronto's transit system is very flawed because they designed only one rapid transit route through downtown. It is not a plan to emulate. The Yonge subway has been overcapacity for years and they have waited so long that they can't afford to build a second line.

I agree. Having everyone transfer to one downtown bound line is not sustainable, especially when the trains will already be full leaving the suburbs.

As for Toronto not being able to afford the DRL, that's BS. The province is pumping money into more suburban light rail lines that plug into the Yonge-University Line and that idiotic $4 billion, one stop Scarborough Subway.

It's all about votes. And votes are in the suburbs, not downtown.

[J.OT13]

I'm not against the Barrhaven extension. Get it done, along with Kanata, and all the burbs' are served. We can then move on to downtown. Bank-Rideau-Montreal. Three transfers to existing line; S/E Transitway at Billing's Bridge (S/E will never need to be converted capacity wise, but I could see the City sink billions into it for votes), Rideau and Blair.

Gatineau is not our problem. The Feds should pay for the crossings.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Gatineau is not our problem. The Feds should pay for the crossings.

Yes and no. Helping Gatineau residents commute to Ottawa isn’t but helping Ottawa residents commute to Gatineau is. In the end it is best if we cooperate with Gatineau and have both agencies fill vehicles that would otherwise be deadheading with the other’s residents. That’s why I like the idea of having STO run trains across the Alexandra Bridge to Rideau and having OC Transpo run across the Pow Bridge to Chadier. Both primarily target their own residents but are also useful to the other’s.