Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Very well said. I find it stupid when people use such arguements. I live in downtown HULL in a nice afforable area only a few blocks from the Museum of History. I could have chose to live in the suburbs like alot of people do but I won't do that because I like living downtown. I agree lets stop supporting suburban and exurban sprawl, let those who choose to live there pay for themselves.

Not everybody can live in downtown Hull. If they tried to make 'your choice', you could not afford to live there. If I lived in downtown Hull, it would be much less convenient to my job. It would also be a poor match to my lifestyle.

I think it is ridiculous to look down on people's choices. And as far as paying for themselves, I don't know how that can be better accomplished other than market forces. There are already substantial costs for living at a distance. I am not advocating that, but there seems to be some denial.

I bolded one phrase because you only get one vote. Unfortunately, everybody living in the suburbs and exurbs also get a vote. Anti-suburb policies will not get politicians elected where all those people live. Sorry, that is reality. And draconian policies designed to make it difficult for suburbanites and exurbanites will backfire on you as well. What makes it difficult to get into the city will also make it difficult for you to leave the city when you want to.

As I mentioned previously, we need better urban design. Maybe more will want to live in an urban area as a result. However, don't hold your breath.

[lrt's friend]

Are you seriously comparing Ottawa to a metro area that is 15 times the size? By the way, the New York metro area with its "sprawl" has double the density in its MSA compared to the Ottawa CMA.

Oh and the residents of New York City aren't seeing their property taxes provide transit discounts to Long Island residents. In fact, a lot of cities in the US have rules paying city workers who choose to live outside the city's boundaries less.

You are the one that brought up NYC and bridge tolls to Manhattan. My point was that this did not stop sprawl that has reached well into Connecticut, to Philadelphia and the far reaches of Long Island. Yes, NYC is much bigger but so is their sprawl problem.

Let American cities do what they want. They are not good examples to follow. Canadian law is different that would not allow discriminatory pay policies.

The cities with the best quality of life are the ones that are not choked by traffic. That means a city with an effective transportation network.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think it is ridiculous to look down on people's choices. And as far as paying for themselves, I don't know how that can be better accomplished other than market forces. There are already substantial costs for living at a distance. I am not advocating that, but there seems to be some denial.

.

If people make choices that are harmful to the city and the overall region then I think it is reasonable to look down on them.

I think the easiest solution is to stop expanding the transportation network outward. Make it quite clear that people moving into rural subdivisions are not getting subsidized commutes.

Also, maybe we need public service announcements explaining that downtown Hull and the rural exurbs are not the only housing options in the city.

[J.OT13]

In the old days, OC Transpo was the responsibility of the regional government. One transit agency, eleven municipalities. Maybe OC Transpo should do the same now, taking over Clarence-Rockland, Russell and others. They could re-introduce zone based fares;

• Zone 1 - Inside the Greenbelt: $100
• Zone 2 - Major Suburban Areas (Kanata-Stittsville, Barrhaven-Riveverside South, Orleans-Cumberland): $120
• Zone 3 - Rural Areas within Ottawa: $150
• Zone 4 - Suburbs and Villages outside Ottawa: $250

Alternatively, we could merge zones 1 and 2 together at $100 by charging park-and-ride lots between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Keep weekends and evenings free to encourage transit use for special events. Prices could be $3 for one day, $20 for a monthly pass, paid by cash, credit, debit or Presto.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ridiculous strawmen is all some have to offer.

Mid-sized European cities are filled with houses. And low rise apartments. Built in nice walkable neighbhourhoods. Somehow, we can't have that. 'Cause apparently our planners and builders don't know anything between commie apartment block and mcmansion.

Don't you know? Canadian architects and urban planners are incapable of anything else?

Have you even been to the suburbs in Ottawa? Yes there are many large homes but there are also lots of townhouses as well. Below is a new development in Stittsville. They may be larger than 1000 sq ft inside, but they are by no means "McMansions."

Street View
Satellite View

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Not everybody can live in downtown Hull. If they tried to make 'your choice', you could not afford to live there. If I lived in downtown Hull, it would be much less convenient to my job. It would also be a poor match to my lifestyle.

Exactly. There seems to be an assumption on this forum that everyone works downtown. I work in high tech (the hardware side) and most of my employers have been in Kanata, so living in downtown Ottawa or Hull would be very inconvenient.

The other factors are people don't always work in the same part of the city as their spouse, and when people change jobs it isn't always practical to sell their home and move, especially if they have a family. I know that doesn't describe everyone, but you can't just paint everyone in the suburbs with the same brush.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If people make choices that are harmful to the city and the overall region then I think it is reasonable to look down on them.

Looking down on someone without understand their full situation is arrogant and egotistical. Kind of like people looking down on someone who has lung cancer assuming that it was smoking that caused it, only to discover that they never smoked a day in their life.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the easiest solution is to stop expanding the transportation network outward. Make it quite clear that people moving into rural subdivisions are not getting subsidized commutes.

I agree that the City of Ottawa should not subsidize the commutes of those who live outside of the city, but there is a difference between subsidizing the commute and coming up with a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If we take a step back and realize that there will always be people who need to get from their rural residence to Ottawa (possibly as part of their regular commute) and look at the options:

1. Drive all the way and add to the congestion on the streets in Ottawa,
2. Drive to a Park and Ride and use transit (the parking spot isn't free to build or maintain),
3. Use a Rural bus to get to an LRT station and transfer, or
4. Use a Rural bus to get downtown, reducing the need to transfer

Personally, I think the last think the latter two options are better than the first two for taxpayers and thus should be "promoted" (though not to the point where we encourage more people to move to rural neighborhoods).

Originally Posted by acottawa

Also, maybe we need public service announcements explaining that downtown Hull and the rural exurbs are not the only housing options in the city.

LOL. Ya right.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In the old days, OC Transpo was the responsibility of the regional government. One transit agency, eleven municipalities. Maybe OC Transpo should do the same now, taking over Clarence-Rockland, Russell and others.

I agree. Obviously the subsidies for providing the service should come from the Townships, the way they are fully subsidizing their private service. The only issue is I am not sure that OCTranspo can compete with a private service price wise.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

They could re-introduce zone based fares;

• Zone 1 - Inside the Greenbelt: $100
• Zone 2 - Major Suburban Areas (Kanata-Stittsville, Barrhaven-Riveverside South, Orleans-Cumberland): $120
• Zone 3 - Rural Areas within Ottawa: $150
• Zone 4 - Suburbs and Villages outside Ottawa: $250

My only thought is zone fares should be only during peak periods. Zones 3 and 4 aren't likely to have service outside of peak periods and the cost of providing off-peak service to Zone 2 is pretty much fixed, so its use should be encouraged. We might even want a cheaper off-peak fare for that reason.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Alternatively, we could merge zones 1 and 2 together at $100 by charging park-and-ride lots between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Keep weekends and evenings free to encourage transit use for special events. Prices could be $3 for one day, $20 for a monthly pass, paid by cash, credit, debit or Presto.

I like the concept, but I would make a couple changes.

First of all your ratios seem a little off. Monthly transit passes are almost 34 times the cost of a cash fare, which is 17 times the round trip fare, but your ratio is about 7 to 1, so assuming your $20 per month, I would charge $1.25 per day. The daily rate could also be bundled with a ticket or day pass for a small discount (those with monthly or multi-day passes could also get the same discount).

Secondly, I would make the hours 4am to 10am to better target commuters.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Looking down on someone without understand their full situation is arrogant and egotistical. Kind of like people looking down on someone who has lung cancer assuming that it was smoking that caused it, only to discover that they never smoked a day in their life.

No, it is more like not wanting taxpayers to subsidize the cost of cigarettes, or wanting cigarettes taxed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Not everybody can live in downtown Hull. If they tried to make 'your choice', you could not afford to live there. If I lived in downtown Hull, it would be much less convenient to my job. It would also be a poor match to my lifestyle.

Keep piling on the straw man arguments. Nobody says that downtown Hull and Ottawa are the only options available.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think it is ridiculous to look down on people's choices.

I am not concerned with disdain for their choices. I am concerned with paying for them. How they want to live is their choice. I just don't see why I have have to help subsidize it when there are people in my city who need help.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You are the one that brought up NYC and bridge tolls to Manhattan.

As an example of a place that puts a cost on sprawl.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My point was that this did not stop sprawl that has reached well into Connecticut, to Philadelphia and the far reaches of Long Island. Yes, NYC is much bigger but so is their sprawl problem.

The New York MSA has double the population density of the Ottawa CMA. Their "sprawl problem" is half as bad as Ottawa.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Let American cities do what they want. They are not good examples to follow.

You always seem to want it both ways when citing the US as examples. You're happy to bring up cities with random rail lines into the middle of low density burbs. But now, "they aren't great examples"?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Canadian law is different that would not allow discriminatory pay policies.

Canadian law indeed does allow this. Toronto looked at imposing similar restrictions at one point. Only union negotiation stopped them. It's not discriminatory to effectively have a bonus for living inside the city.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The cities with the best quality of life are the ones that are not choked by traffic. That means a city with an effective transportation network.

Hard to have an effective transportation network when people insist that anything less than 2000 sqft detached is unacceptable as their final form of housing and they are willing to move further and further out until that dream fits their budget.

Of course, these same people will then complain about the very traffic they are contributing to. You'll even find them bitching about how bad public transport is. Despite making decent transportation very difficult to provide.

By the way, this is one of those commie block neighbourhoods in Europe, you're so worried about:


https://goo.gl/maps/MxLAKai45XN2

I have family that lives in this area. Pray tell, what about this would be uncomfortable in Ottawa? And that neighbourhood is 20 km from downtown Vienna. A tad less than Kanata to downtown Ottawa.

So this is effectively a suburb. But you'll notice, no 2000 sqft detached with double car driveways and gigantic sunken lots. You'll also notice, no commie apartment blocks around either. And that build form means you can practically walk to the train station from anywhere in town. Nobody but the elderly take buses. And you're in downtown Vienna in 30 minutes. They average 5000 -10 000km per year on their cars, because most of what they need is within walking distance in town. Or they can grab on the way home from work.

But hey, according to you, their quality of life must suck right?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In the old days, OC Transpo was the responsibility of the regional government. One transit agency, eleven municipalities. Maybe OC Transpo should do the same now, taking over Clarence-Rockland, Russell and others. They could re-introduce zone based fares;

• Zone 1 - Inside the Greenbelt: $100
• Zone 2 - Major Suburban Areas (Kanata-Stittsville, Barrhaven-Riveverside South, Orleans-Cumberland): $120
• Zone 3 - Rural Areas within Ottawa: $150
• Zone 4 - Suburbs and Villages outside Ottawa: $250

Alternatively, we could merge zones 1 and 2 together at $100 by charging park-and-ride lots between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Keep weekends and evenings free to encourage transit use for special events. Prices could be $3 for one day, $20 for a monthly pass, paid by cash, credit, debit or Presto.

Zoned fares are a great idea. But the question is one of enforcement. How would you enforce them in a situation where buses are flat rate everywhere? Would the person just not going to a deductible wallet on their Presto and not bother with a pass? And what's stopping me from just putting on my work address downtown and using that to discount my pass on Presto?

Zoned fares elsewhere are normally enforced by some sort of service separation. For example, buses in a zone rarely cross over to another zone and only feed stations in that zone. Or your transfer might not work in another zone. Etc. Not sure how this could be implemented in Ottawa.

Charging for parking might be a better idea. The TTC started doing it ages ago. And GO will follow suit. Charge for OC Transpo parking and put the same on as tax on parking spots in the downtown core to balance it out. This would target more peak direction commuters while letting those who work in the suburbs (where a car is necessary) off without any impact.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Have you even been to the suburbs in Ottawa? Yes there are many large homes but there are also lots of townhouses as well. Below is a new development in Stittsville. They may be larger than 1000 sq ft inside, but they are by no means "McMansions."

Street View
Satellite View

Did I say there were no townhouses in the suburbs? It's great that the suburbs are finally having some density forced on them. But let's not kid ourselves. Most of those new developments still aren't building walkable, transit friendly neighbourhoods. Your exceptions aren't the rule. And you know it.

Incidentally, these handful of streets of townhouses aren't all that pedestrian or transit friendly either.

And location matters as much as build form. If they were to build a 50 storey condos in Carp, that would not really help with transit planning either.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Exactly. There seems to be an assumption on this forum that everyone works downtown.

Umm no. I don't work anywhere close to downtown. So I fully understand what people face.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I work in high tech (the hardware side) and most of my employers have been in Kanata, so living in downtown Ottawa or Hull would be very inconvenient.

A strawman argument nobody put forward. Nobody here is arguing that everybody should be living downtown. Though I would argue that proper planning and some modification of people's taste and expectations would see over 80% living inside the greenbelt.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The other factors are people don't always work in the same part of the city as their spouse, and when people change jobs it isn't always practical to sell their home and move, especially if they have a family. I know that doesn't describe everyone, but you can't just paint everyone in the suburbs with the same brush.

Ironically, the denser a city, the more families like this are helped because commutes become easier by transit. Right now, it's all but impractical to commute from Orleans to Kanata by transit. But if most were living inside the Greenbelt, that commute would get a lot easier.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Zoned fares are a great idea. But the question is one of enforcement. How would you enforce them in a situation where buses are flat rate everywhere? Would the person just not going to a deductible wallet on their Presto and not bother with a pass? And what's stopping me from just putting on my work address downtown and using that to discount my pass on Presto?

Zoned fares elsewhere are normally enforced by some sort of service separation. For example, buses in a zone rarely cross over to another zone and only feed stations in that zone. Or your transfer might not work in another zone. Etc. Not sure how this could be implemented in Ottawa.

Charging for parking might be a better idea. The TTC started doing it ages ago. And GO will follow suit. Charge for OC Transpo parking and put the same on as tax on parking spots in the downtown core to balance it out. This would target more peak direction commuters while letting those who work in the suburbs (where a car is necessary) off without any impact.

Zoned fares in most places are enforced by random checks or by requiring people to tap out. There is no break in service necessary.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Zoned fares are a great idea. But the question is one of enforcement. How would you enforce them in a situation where buses are flat rate everywhere? Would the person just not going to a deductible wallet on their Presto and not bother with a pass? And what's stopping me from just putting on my work address downtown and using that to discount my pass on Presto?

One way this could be done is to design the exoGreenbelt LRT stations to require a tap out that adds the extra fare. I mentioned an idea before to treat each suburb (Orleans, Kanata, Barrhaven) as separate zones with half fares on local routes so that intra-suburb travel is cheap to encourage transit use within (say someone's house in Covent Glen to Place d'Orléans) but charge a fare-and-a-half for travel into downtown (which is automatically done when they tap in to get on the LRT or a cross-town bus). Three types of passes could be offered, a full regional, a core pass, and a cheap local suburban pass. The limited passes would have electronic wallets incorporated for trips to other zones.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

... with half fares on local routes so that intra-suburb travel is cheap to encourage transit use within (say someone's house in Covent Glen to Place d'Orléans)

I think that’s the biggest problem with a one zone system. They’re dinging people 3.50 to take a ten minute ride on their local bus to get groceries

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Did I say there were no townhouses in the suburbs?

You said:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

'Cause apparently our planners and builders don't know anything between commie apartment block and mcmansion.

So I was proving that they can and do build a large variety of buildings.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's great that the suburbs are finally having some density forced on them.

It actually isn't new. Here is another street that was built 20 years ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/3uekwGkFfUo

I agree it isn't common though. The fact is builders build what people want to buy. Interestingly, Stittsville Central wrote an interesting article last month: Three ways Stittsville could benefit from more high-density development

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But let's not kid ourselves. Most of those new developments still aren't building walkable, transit friendly neighbourhoods. Your exceptions aren't the rule. And you know it.

I never said it was the rule. I just said that they are being built.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Incidentally, these handful of streets of townhouses aren't all that pedestrian or transit friendly either.

You don't need to have transit run on every single street. Using my original example, Maple Grove is within easy walking distance and the bus service could easily be upgraded along it.

By pedestrian friendly I assume you mean no access to shops within walking distance. That is an obvious flaw.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Umm no. I don't work anywhere close to downtown. So I fully understand what people face.

Glad you do. It seems a rarity on this forum. My comment wasn't directued at you but was indirectly in response to the following post:

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Very well said. I find it stupid when people use such arguements. I live in downtown HULL in a nice afforable area only a few blocks from the Museum of History. I could have chose to live in the suburbs like alot of people do but I won't do that because I like living downtown. I agree lets stop supporting suburban and exurban sprawl, let those who choose to live there pay for themselves.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A strawman argument nobody put forward. Nobody here is arguing that everybody should be living downtown. Though I would argue that proper planning and some modification of people's taste and expectations would see over 80% living inside the greenbelt.

Nobody? Here is a post in another thread from just today:

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

If we're being optimistic, maybe all these developments will encourage the city to put a hard stop on approving any new developments outside the greenbelt. And while they're at it, maybe it will give them some courage to keep voting "no" on all future votes on expanding the urban boundary for the next 10-15 years.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You said:So I was proving that they can and do build a large variety of buildings.



It actually isn't new. Here is another street that was built 20 years ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/3uekwGkFfUo

I agree it isn't common though. The fact is builders build what people want to buy. Interestingly, Stittsville Central wrote an interesting article last month: Three ways Stittsville could benefit from more high-density development



I never said it was the rule. I just said that they are being built.



You don't need to have transit run on every single street. Using my original example, Maple Grove is within easy walking distance and the bus service could easily be upgraded along it.

By pedestrian friendly I assume you mean no access to shops within walking distance. That is an obvious flaw.



Glad you do. It seems a rarity on this forum. My comment wasn't directued at you but was indirectly in response to the following post:

I may live downtown but i don't work downtown. I Work at Trainyards mall which is an easy 30 min bus ride. My post is aimed at people who live in the suburbs and work downtown that contribute to the traffic messes the city faces. If people would work close to where they live like many people do then the city would face less problems. My point is guys like me shouldn't subsidize long distance commuters who chose to live far from where they work.

[acottawa]

I agree that most middle class people in this city don’t want to live in high rise buildings over the longer term.

I think part of the problem is that infill development is so expensive. Knocking down a 50s bungalow and building a duplex can involve tens of thousands in drawings, legal fees, permits, etc. Therefore developers tend to target affluent buyers. It would be nice if the city took steps to make these projects more affordable.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I may live downtown but i don't work downtown. I Work at Trainyards mall which is an easy 30 min bus ride. My post is aimed at people who live in the suburbs and work downtown that contribute to the traffic messes the city faces. If people would work close to where they live like many people do then the city would face less problems. My point is guys like me shouldn't subsidize long distance commuters who chose to live far from where they work.

I don't disagree with you, but just to be clear, most of your commute is in Ontario but you live (and thus pay taxes) in Quebec, so Ottawa/Ontario subsidizes most of your commute and yet you are complaining about subsidizing long distance commuters?

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't disagree with you, but just to be clear, most of your commute is in Ontario but you live (and thus pay taxes) in Quebec, so Ottawa/Ontario subsidizes most of your commute and yet you are complaining about subsidizing long distance commuters?

More than half of my family lives in Ottawa and its the same problem in Gatineau as it is in Ottawa with urban residents subsidizing suburban commuters.

I do most if not all my shopping in Ottawa so i do pay some Ontario taxes as well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

More than half of my family lives in Ottawa and its the same problem in Gatineau as it is in Ottawa with urban residents subsidizing suburban commuters.

I do most if not all my shopping in Ottawa so i do pay some Ontario taxes as well.

This is not a criticism as I generally support freedom of movement for workers across municipal and provincial boundaries, but he does have a valid point.

Unless you are regularly buying big ticket items (like luxury cars) in Ottawa, those sales taxes you pay are only a small fraction of what you'd contribute to Ontario if you paid your income tax there. And let's not mention potential property taxes too. (You'd still pay the same sales taxes to them too - maybe even a bit more.)

[lrt's friend]

We cannot have 80% of the population living inside the Greenbelt and create a desirable living environment.

This cannot occur without mass demolition. Sounds like the urban renewal experiments of the 1960s that were massive failures only on a much larger scale. Look at Lebreton Flats. 50+ years later. Ottawa faced massive expropriations in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, which displaced hundreds if not thousands of people. There has been much criticism on this board on what the outcome has been. I think of one property on Innes Road that was expropriated for the Greenbelt, and then sold for big box stores. An improvement? Better urban design? Hardly. And now we want a massive densification of the city, that could only happen by expropriating 10,000s of people. Sounds like a happy situation. Will this really make a better city by displacing that many people?

We need to understand that once property is developed, we can only tinker with design afterwards as individual properties become available. Low density areas from the 1950s are not suddenly going to have the population double or triple and their will be natural resistance from neighbours, and rightly so. People deserve a degree of stability in their neighbourhoods.

We cannot stop sprawl in a growing city. We cannot stop people from wanting a 3000 sq foot home outside Kemptville. This is a democratic society, where people should have choices. We can improve our urban design, which is dependent on improving our transportation network. They go hand and hand.

In the long run, I am all for moving from a car-first based transport plan to a rail based plan. But to make this work, rail has to go where people want it to go. The last thing we should do is build rail as a social engineering experiment. Spend masses of taxpayer money by serving as many of the taxpayers as possible.

If we wish to punish people living outside the Greenbelt, by not providing effective transit service including rail service, then we get what we deserve. And the consequence is the status quo. Continued low density, car based development.

And if we simply stop approving new development in the suburbs, where do the buyers go? Those wanting a single family home, which is their choice, will buy outside the city limits in Russell, Rockland, Kemptville, Carleton Place and Arnprior. They are not suddenly going to choose a condo downtown instead. And we end up with bigger problems by making people commute even further.

Let's keep this discussion based on a degree of reality. Yes, we can improve things, but there is not going to be revolutionary changes. The biggest changes can be accomplished through our new rail transit network, but limiting it to inside the Greenbelt will also limit its effectiveness and limit its ability to change how our suburbs develop.