HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3541  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 5:02 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
I think that one of Ottawa's biggest problems is that it has invested in a rapid transit system but the city's employers are not sufficiently compelled to locate close to its stations.

It is not so much about where people live (at least from a transit perspective) as it is about where they work. There are places like Copenhagen, Denmark where you have single-family homes in great numbers (at densities not too far off from what you see in Orleans and Kanata these days) but employment nodes are much more convenient to non-automobile transportation there. None of this crap like office parks in the middle of a field with maybe one feeder bus every half-hour at rush hour and then virtually no service for the rest of the day.

Places to shop and play in Copenhagen (even in the suburbs) are also often located within reasonable walking distance of single-family home zones. This is another thing you don't see so much of here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3542  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 7:05 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
A lot more than Ottawa's. Ottawa's sprawl is horrendous compared to other Canadian cities.

Basically, it's time to draw the line on developments and require grid road networks.
I really question the accuracy of this statement about sprawl. Toronto's sprawl is horrendous. Calgary has very little high rise development away from downtown and is notoriously low density. Vancouver's sprawl is quickly eating up the Fraser Valley. Sure, the older parts of Montreal have good density but Montreal was Canada's largest city before the post-war sprawl era. Montreal still has its share of sprawl but whether its less is more a factor of its economic decline since the 1970s.

You can make this statement which is applicable across the country. The more prosperous a city has been in the post-war era, the more sprawl it has.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3543  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 7:22 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Sprawl is very subjective since there can be very good reasons for conventional low population densities that aren't all bad, like rail yards, airports, parks and greenbelt type areas.

I don't think any community in Canada really sprawls in the conventional USA sense. Even while communities from the 60s to the mid 90s were built with relatively low density, we are talking 5 or 6 units per acre, not 1-3 typical in much of the suburbs and exurbs in the states.

The big problem with sprawl in the Canadian sense is poor road network connectivity. Instead of transitway expansion, I wonder how much more $100 million dollars with a mandate to build functional routes through communities with the ability to expropriate (ie connect broken road netwokrs)to build functional rational transit routes would contribute to transit use and service cost savings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3544  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 7:24 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy_haak View Post
A grid network, while having certain merits (such as being easily serviced by transit and lowering travel distances), actually increases the ratio of roadway to land and doesn't necessarily reduce sprawl. Reduced lot sizes would increase household density. More importantly, how do you change commercial land use practices to be more friendly? A big box development is still a big box development, grid road network or not.
It does add roadway to land, but minimizes the need for boulevards, avenues and highways. It the end, small grid roads are cheaper. Plus you can always have long stretches of road before the next intersection.

Density come by itself over time. It's tougher to rezone suburbs than a grid network. I will take an example of LaSalle, where a Wal-Mart parking is being divided to allow condo towers. It would have been much more difficult to do this with curved streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3545  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 7:29 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
A hub and spoke approach with buses has limits.
The current spare-the-civil-servants-the-indignity-of-transferring approach has even tighter limits, and we've been at them since the early 1990s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3546  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 7:49 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I really question the accuracy of this statement about sprawl. Toronto's sprawl is horrendous. Calgary has very little high rise development away from downtown and is notoriously low density. Vancouver's sprawl is quickly eating up the Fraser Valley. Sure, the older parts of Montreal have good density but Montreal was Canada's largest city before the post-war sprawl era. Montreal still has its share of sprawl but whether its less is more a factor of its economic decline since the 1970s.

You can make this statement which is applicable across the country. The more prosperous a city has been in the post-war era, the more sprawl it has.
Ottawa has the greenbelt. Which is one of the biggest factor for it's low density.

"Old suburbs" are still dense compared to other North-American cities. Le Plateau in Montréal is one of the most dense, even with the lack of skyscrapers.

Montréal sprawl started in the late 70s early 80s. Montréal Island still had free land back then, plus the fact that bridges were needed to cross helped reducing sprawl.

For the GTA:
Population (2006)
- CMA Total 5,113,149
- CMA Density 866.4/km2 (2,244/sq mi)

Greater Montréal:
Population (2009)
- Total 3,814,700
- Density 853.6/km2 (2,210.8/sq mi)

Greater Vancouver:
- Total 2,116,581 (2006)
- Density 735.6/km2 (1,905.2/sq mi)

Calgary Region:
- Total 1,230,248 (2006)
- Density 242.03/km2 (619.6/sq mi)

National Capital Region:
- Total 1,130,761 (2006)
- Density 197.82/km2 (506.4/sq mi)

Ottawa: (city proper)
- City 812,129 (2006)
- Density 292.3/km2 (757.1/sq mi)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3547  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 7:55 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
The current spare-the-civil-servants-the-indignity-of-transferring approach has even tighter limits, and we've been at them since the early 1990s.
Oh, I'm not against hub and spoke. I'm just saying that if a bus is full, you can't put more people in it. So transferring from bus to a bus, well if the bus is full, it serves no purpose to add a transfer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3548  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 7:56 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
It makes sense, trains use a less expensive fuel, and use much less labour. If you reduce the base costs while simultaneously change what those costs are, you can change your slope. Basic econ.
I don't buy it. Fuel costs are a small percentage of operating costs and electricity comes from fossil fuels in part and is going to be replaced by more expensive sustainable solutions. I'm all for conversion to electric, but it doesn't explain the graph. Also, a large chunk of our transit system will remain buses, so that component should also be exponential for the "alternate model".

Where did the graph come from, I'd like to see context, assumptions, etc...
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3549  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 8:04 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
I don't buy it. Fuel costs are a small percentage of operating costs and electricity comes from fossil fuels in part and is going to be replaced by more expensive sustainable solutions. I'm all for conversion to electric, but it doesn't explain the graph. Also, a large chunk of our transit system will remain buses, so that component should also be exponential for the "alternate model".

Where did the graph come from, I'd like to see context, assumptions, etc...
It's from the "Benefits of Light Rail" document from the city of Ottawa.

Quote:
In 2019, LRT's first year of service, the redesigned transit system will save the City up to $100 million in annual operating costs. Operating costs for Light Rail are much lower than buses, so those savings will grow as the rail system is expanded in the future.

APTA estimates that every $10 million invested in public transit saves $15 million in transportation costs for both highway and transit users. These savings will create new opportunities for the City of Ottawa to manage
property tax rates or invest in improved services.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3550  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 8:09 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
Ottawa has the greenbelt. Which is one of the biggest factor for it's low density.

"Old suburbs" are still dense compared to other North-American cities. Le Plateau in Montréal is one of the most dense, even with the lack of skyscrapers.

Montréal sprawl started in the late 70s early 80s. Montréal Island still had free land back then, plus the fact that bridges were needed to cross helped reducing sprawl.

For the GTA:
Population (2006)
- CMA Total 5,113,149
- CMA Density 866.4/km2 (2,244/sq mi)

Greater Montréal:
Population (2009)
- Total 3,814,700
- Density 853.6/km2 (2,210.8/sq mi)

Greater Vancouver:
- Total 2,116,581 (2006)
- Density 735.6/km2 (1,905.2/sq mi)

Calgary Region:
- Total 1,230,248 (2006)
- Density 242.03/km2 (619.6/sq mi)

National Capital Region:
- Total 1,130,761 (2006)
- Density 197.82/km2 (506.4/sq mi)

Ottawa: (city proper)
- City 812,129 (2006)
- Density 292.3/km2 (757.1/sq mi)

What does the National Capital Region and the city proper mean? If you are including all of the City of Ottawa, we know that the majority of that land is still rural. As we recall with the big Postmaster controversy in Pakenham last year, this village was included in the National Capital Region. To consider this part of the urban area of Ottawa, is plain silly. There are several km between Pakenham and the real suburbs of Ottawa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3551  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 8:28 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
What does the National Capital Region and the city proper mean? If you are including all of the City of Ottawa, we know that the majority of that land is still rural. As we recall with the big Postmaster controversy in Pakenham last year, this village was included in the National Capital Region. To consider this part of the urban area of Ottawa, is plain silly. There are several km between Pakenham and the real suburbs of Ottawa.
It's a comparison of CMAs. So it includes the smaller villages for each region. No numbers posted were of urban areas. All of them are CMAs.

Quote:
A "census metropolitan area" (CMA) is a grouping of census subdivisions comprising a large urban area (the "urban core") and those surrounding "urban fringes" and fringes" with which it is closely integrated. To become a CMA, an area must register an urban core population of at least 100,000 at the previous census. CMA status is retained even if this core population later drops below 100,000.

CMAs may cross census division and provincial boundaries, although the Ottawa-Gatineau metropolitan area in Ontario and Quebec is the only one that currently crosses a provincial border.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3552  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 8:41 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
It's a comparison of CMAs. So it includes the smaller villages for each region. No numbers posted were of urban areas. All of them are CMAs.
OK, then it is a meaningless comparison if we are including rural areas. You then have to ask, what percentage of that land is rural, for each city?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3553  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 8:43 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
It's from the "Benefits of Light Rail" document from the city of Ottawa.
Thanks, but the document was concocted by "Ottawa Light Rail", it isn't a city of Ottawa created document. It's a very interesting positive spin on all of light rails shortcomings. 44 m below ground like in other great cities... isn't 44 m really really deep, hard to access and escape in an emergency or power outage?
http://www.ottawalightrail.ca%2Fmedi...0-%2520Web.pdf
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3554  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 9:55 PM
GoTrans GoTrans is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
Thanks, but the document was concocted by "Ottawa Light Rail", it isn't a city of Ottawa created document. It's a very interesting positive spin on all of light rails shortcomings. 44 m below ground like in other great cities... isn't 44 m really really deep, hard to access and escape in an emergency or power outage?
http://www.ottawalightrail.ca%2Fmedi...0-%2520Web.pdf
The document is in fact a city document. If there is a spin on this document it is no worse than the spin put on by the supporters of BRT. You would think that the recent problems with bus congestion and construction would only support the reason for light rail in general and a tunnel in particular. Don't forget that this is only a start. Over time many of your concerns with transfers will be eliminated. The depth under ground is not insurmountable as is pointed out in various documents referencing other cities transit systems.
You are creating an issue where none really exists.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3555  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 10:40 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
Thanks, but the document was concocted by "Ottawa Light Rail", it isn't a city of Ottawa created document. It's a very interesting positive spin on all of light rails shortcomings. 44 m below ground like in other great cities... isn't 44 m really really deep, hard to access and escape in an emergency or power outage?
http://www.ottawalightrail.ca%2Fmedi...0-%2520Web.pdf
Thanks, I didn't put much more energy looking at it.

But yes, the reasons Moscow had such deep stations, it's because they were being used as potential nuclear shelters.

For Paris, there are some stations with 4 tunnels on top of each other, they had no choice of digging deeper to add a line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3556  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 10:45 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
OK, then it is a meaningless comparison if we are including rural areas. You then have to ask, what percentage of that land is rural, for each city?
It is included in other regions. All these "villages" are part of sprawl since the CMA is based on force of attraction of the main city. If the village would be self-sustained, it wouldn't be included in the CMA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3557  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 1:23 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I think that one of Ottawa's biggest problems is that it has invested in a rapid transit system but the city's employers are not sufficiently compelled to locate close to its stations.
That's a very good point and it's one that is missed by the likes of Denley who want to see workplaces dispersed to the suburbs. That kind of dispersal only works as a solution to road congestion if it is easily accessible to not just people from the surrounding area but the rest of the city as well, otherwise the road network just gets clogged by people travelling from everywhere to everywhere.

One of the things that we nominally got right with the Transitway was to also institute policies to protect station areas for future employment nodes (this is a tech neutral policy, of course) and to encourage employers to locate at such places (the plan was for 40% of employment in the city to be within 400 m of a Transitway station; it was 32% in 1996). The problem is that it doesn't seem to have worked too well: few employers locate themselves near the Transitway and office parks like that in Kanata North never included provision for a transitway through them, and, consequently, the office buildings in such office parks were never forced to cluster along a single corridor. Regional planning also failed to prevent places like Nepean from approving office park developments far from the nearest rapid transit line, a good example being the new RCMP headquarters (former JDS Uniphase iirc).

I'd take a guess that we're nowhere near the 40% target now and that there is insufficient planning controls in place to compel employment to be located near rapid transit. Whether this is because of lack of thought (i.e. the Transitway doesn't enter into employers' minds as being a factor to consider), a reluctance to be near a transitway (too much noise), higher land prices near transitway stations or a lack of developable land near transitway stations is a good question.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3558  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 1:32 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
It is included in other regions. All these "villages" are part of sprawl since the CMA is based on force of attraction of the main city. If the village would be self-sustained, it wouldn't be included in the CMA.
I realize that. The problem is that when you include these surrounding rural areas and villages, it distorts the density calculation. Montreal and Toronto is surrounded by other smaller cities while Ottawa and Calgary are surrounded by farmland and a few small towns. This does not reflect the density of the urban area itself and by that I mean the city and the contiguous suburbs. To include Pakenham and the Marlborough Forest and the Mer Bleue and Gatineau Park in making a density calculation just does not make sense. These areas are not part of the urban area. They are not part of the sprawl that you are talking about. Farmland and natural areas and historic villages are not sprawl. On the contrary, they are the opposite of sprawl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3559  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 2:11 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Farmland and natural areas and historic villages are not sprawl. On the contrary, they are the opposite of sprawl.
Or, in the case of the first two, in the city of Ottawa, the proximate cause of much of the sprawl.

Pave the Greenbelt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3560  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 2:35 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
Or, in the case of the first two, in the city of Ottawa, the proximate cause of much of the sprawl.

Pave the Greenbelt.
We have to be very careful about this. We don't want to destroy the green character of the city, which so many people from elsewhere admire about Ottawa. Filling in the Greenbelt, but refusing to build on the Alta Vista Parkway corridor or Airport Parkway corridor is hypocritical. They all have their origins from the Greber Plan. There is also limited advantage by filling in the Greenbelt with tract housing and big box stores, which is almost certainly the outcome.

Several members of my family lost their land as a result of the implementation of the Greber Plan and the Greenbelt and consequently they lost their opportunities to sell that land when its value increased as development moved out towards their land. There is a well known case of the Woodburn family who lived on Innes Road for generations, who lost their land to the Greenbelt and then were kicked off that land in order for the NCC to sell that land for big box development. A perfect example of injustice plus the likely outcome of 'paving' over the Greenbelt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:25 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.