HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3561  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 2:54 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
To those who believe that believe that light rail brings TOD, have a look at the photos on this page from Dallas
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...170210&page=10

This is the outcome when Park n Ride lots are considered a necessity (or a preference to local transit as one poster here said) in the suburbs. Is this where we are heading? Is this desireable?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3562  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 12:20 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
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)

The "City of Ottawa" is 2796sq km (1080sq mi), and the urban zone is 512sq km (around 200sq mi) based on the city's data

# Population: 900,000 (mid 2009)
# Households: 366,550 (mid 2009)
# Area: 2,796 kilometres (1,080 square miles); 90 kilometres east to west
# Ottawa's area is almost 80 per cent rural

You could probably estimate that 800,000 of the population within the City's limit are considered "urban", so the math would say :

Population per sq km: 1562/km2 (give of take...)

You can't include the greenbelt in the land use calculations since it is a prohibited building area, treat is like a waterway... I doubt Lake Ontario falls into Toronto's numbers, nor Vancouver's mountains either....


The CMA numbers are all screwed up, see the following figures:
http://www.chpc.biz/Census_Population.htm

Please explain how Edmonton is over 9000sq km? The CMA figures are out of whack, then the Toronto CMA should start at Bowmanville and extend to St-Catherines and to all the way north to Barrie and west to Kitchener.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3563  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 12:56 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
The "City of Ottawa" is 2796sq km (1080sq mi), and the urban zone is 512sq km (around 200sq mi) based on the city's data

# Population: 900,000 (mid 2009)
# Households: 366,550 (mid 2009)
# Area: 2,796 kilometres (1,080 square miles); 90 kilometres east to west
# Ottawa's area is almost 80 per cent rural

You could probably estimate that 800,000 of the population within the City's limit are considered "urban", so the math would say :

Population per sq km: 1562/km2 (give of take...)

You can't include the greenbelt in the land use calculations since it is a prohibited building area, treat is like a waterway... I doubt Lake Ontario falls into Toronto's numbers, nor Vancouver's mountains either....


The CMA numbers are all screwed up, see the following figures:
http://www.chpc.biz/Census_Population.htm

Please explain how Edmonton is over 9000sq km? The CMA figures are out of whack, then the Toronto CMA should start at Bowmanville and extend to St-Catherines and to all the way north to Barrie and west to Kitchener.

Again, if you took only the Urban parts of Toronto or Montréal, you would have over 10 000/km2...

This is the CMA of Montréal:



I don't agree with your Greenbelt comment, since it is mostly responsible for Ottawa's sprawl. If Vancouver stretched out the other side of the mountain, these numbers would have been included in the CMA.

If you're not happy, blame StatsCan!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3564  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 1:48 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
Again, if you took only the Urban parts of Toronto or Montréal, you would have over 10 000/km2...

This is the CMA of Montréal:



I don't agree with your Greenbelt comment, since it is mostly responsible for Ottawa's sprawl. If Vancouver stretched out the other side of the mountain, these numbers would have been included in the CMA.

If you're not happy, blame StatsCan!
I'm just saying that since teh CMA boundaries are not accurate, then we should not rely on CMA density data either.

Superimpose Montreal's CMA against the urban development, you'd probably see that Montreal's CMA is around 50-60% urban.

The city of Ottawa (not CMA, just the city) only has 20% urban, the CMA probably closer to 10%.

How can anybody really believe that Edmonton is twice the size of Montreal?


As for the Greenbelt, these are lands that the city has no control over, therefore it should not be included in density calculations (add Central Exp Farm to that list as well). Ottawa is like Montreal, it is an island, except that Ottawa is mainly surrounded by Federal land and not rivers. If the city had it's way, do you think the Greenbelt would have existed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3565  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 1:55 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201





compare that to Ottawa (not even the CMA, just the city

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3566  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 3:09 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
we return now to our regularly-scheduled programming:
"The provincial government has signed off on its $600-million contribution to Ottawa’s light-rail transit system, which means the city will move ahead with preliminary engineering work for the planned 12-kilometre route."

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technol...#ixzz0yTmiI53K
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3567  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 3:19 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
I'm just saying that since teh CMA boundaries are not accurate, then we should not rely on CMA density data either.

Superimpose Montreal's CMA against the urban development, you'd probably see that Montreal's CMA is around 50-60% urban.

The city of Ottawa (not CMA, just the city) only has 20% urban, the CMA probably closer to 10%.

How can anybody really believe that Edmonton is twice the size of Montreal?

The land contained within the city limits of Gatineau (the second-biggest component of the O-G CMA) is also over 50% rural...

Interesting how Montreal's CMA coincides much more closely (though not perfectly of course) with the built-up area shown in the aerial photo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3568  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 3:37 PM
c_speed3108 c_speed3108 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
To those who believe that believe that light rail brings TOD, have a look at the photos on this page from Dallas
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...170210&page=10

This is the outcome when Park n Ride lots are considered a necessity (or a preference to local transit as one poster here said) in the suburbs. Is this where we are heading? Is this desireable?
Having lived out in the east end before I can say the big problem with transit in the suburbs is that it has never been about moving around the suburbs, it has always been how to get people downtown (or perhaps a few other places efficiently). This is one of the reasons why OC needs all these school routes. The bus routes in the suburbs (which are already hub and spoke) just take people to collection stations, as apposed to some place you might like to go.

An interesting example is Trim station. There is actually a fair bit of employment around Trim station as well as the new La Cite building....yet almost none of it is walkable....although shockingly you do see people in the morning trying to walk along sidewalk-less Trim rd, cross trim road (nuts), jump drainage ditches, and finally work there way around the chain-link fence that runs between much of the business park and Trim rd.

Basically in the suburbs you run into the following problem. If one bus is just going to empty into another bus than why not have the first bus keep going...they call this express buses.

If you don't want express buses there becomes no point in taking the first bus. People have cars so they might as well drive to park and rides and grab the second bus or train or LRT...

Another interesting observation I used make when I lived out that way is that the size of the park and ride lots have become a limiting agent for ridership. The ridership of the transit system would in fact be higher if the park and ride lots were sized to meet demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3569  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 3:43 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Relocated the Greenbelt discussion:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...0&postcount=69
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3570  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 4:02 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
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.
Big-box development would only be the outcome if that's what is allowed.

I would impose a street grid — God almighty, why is the city still allowing segregated residential curvy swoopy cul-de-sac garbage, "office parks", and seas of parking lots retail in this century? — and strict rules that would dictate an urban, not suburban, form to any Greenbelt development.

Main streets. Grids and semi-greeds. Street walls, no bloody setbacks, and parks that serve a function besides "LOOK AT ALL THIS GREEN SPACE!" on the open-house drawings.

And if the developers don't want to build to those specs, the crazy thing is... <I>they can build somewhere else.</I>

Pave the Greenbelt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3571  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 4:23 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
Big-box development would only be the outcome if that's what is allowed.

I would impose a street grid — God almighty, why is the city still allowing segregated residential curvy swoopy cul-de-sac garbage, "office parks", and seas of parking lots retail in this century? — and strict rules that would dictate an urban, not suburban, form to any Greenbelt development.
Because that's all our developers know how to build. There's some unwritten rule somewhere that if an area isn't already urban it can't be developed as urban. It seems most people on here are quite happy with Ashcroft's original proposal for the convent site in Westboro, but look at the schlock they propose for, ahem, "Eastboro":

Nestled between Orleans and Navan, Eastboro is surrounded by fertile farmlands and miles of country roads. Conservation plays a significant role in the stimulation of the Eastboro community. Eastboro is not only a development, it is a self-contained community designed on 200 acres of land.

Sounds sort of good so far... "self-contained" sounds sort of like what Westboro was before the MEC arrived and the condo craze started, pushing out all the community-oriented retail and replacing it with high-priced outdoor athletic shops and coffee bars.

Eastboro offers the perfect blend of country-comfort style just far enough out of the city that you do not have to worry about jeopardizing your new found serenity. This is the ideal opportunity for home buyers to get into the home of their dreams in the serenity of the country landscape!

Well, so much for that. The densest form of housing is going to be three storey townhouses. Commercial will probably be single-storey in a parking lot. They probably won't even get a Starbucks.

Why can't Ashcroft just take their convent proposal and drop it in the centre of Eastboro, minus the convent?

Quote:
Main streets. Grids and semi-greeds. Street walls, no bloody setbacks, and parks that serve a function besides "LOOK AT ALL THIS GREEN SPACE!" on the open-house drawings.
Developers only want this when they do developments in already built-up areas. In undeveloped areas they want nothing of the sort. They don't want to put in the effort to make main streets. They're happy to take advantage of existing main streets, yes, but make one? Hell no.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3572  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 4:54 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Why can't Ashcroft just take their convent proposal and drop it in the centre of Eastboro, minus the convent?.
... simply because it would not sell... that's why.

Brigil still hasn't sold out their Phase 1 of a planned 4 towers at Petrie after 4 years... why??, who in their right mind wants to live in a highrise Condo in Orleans??? Sure the setting is spectacular, but the location is not appropriate.

Trust me, these developers are not idiots (except Brigil in the case above), they know what and where to build it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3573  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 5:10 PM
c_speed3108 c_speed3108 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
... simply because it would not sell... that's why.

Brigil still hasn't sold out their Phase 1 of a planned 4 towers at Petrie after 4 years... why??, who in their right mind wants to live in a highrise Condo in Orleans??? Sure the setting is spectacular, but the location is not appropriate.

Trust me, these developers are not idiots (except Brigil in the case above), they know what and where to build it
The problem with high-rise condos in Orleans is that high rise cost too much to build. If you are going to pay that much for a condo why not get one some place better located.

Brigil has sold a slew of condos in Orleans but most have the 4-story walk-up variety built out of wood where they can deliver large square footage (1100 or so if I recall) for the low to mid 200's.

Brigil's Petrie land II will be more of these low rise types.

The other problem with Petrie Landing is there is just nothing around it...at all. I am curious if some of the proposed High-Rise condos around the town centre might be a better sell. The movies did more out but the Shankman is there now and the Y is expanding too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3574  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 5:33 PM
Ottawan Ottawan is offline
Citizen-at-large
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Expat (in Toronto)
Posts: 738
The density of Ottawa's CMA

The reason why the CMA density comparisons are a non-sequitur can be seen in the following example:

Scenario 1: 1,000 new dwellings are built in three tall towers built on the snowdump at Bayview (approx 2 acres).

Scenario 2: 1,000 new estate lots are developed in Richmond, each on 2 acre landscaped lots.

In my view, scenario 1 is 1,000 times more dense (or 100,000% denser) than scenario 2. However, according to Ottawa's CMA density, each scenario would have made Ottawa denser by the same minimal amount. I would argue that by developing currently undeveloped space to a density less than the average of the existing developed areas of Ottawa, scenario 2 should actually be seen as decreasing Ottawa's density, not increasing it, and certainly not increasing it at the same rate as scenario 1.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3575  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 6:14 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
Your point is well taken, but you neglect to consider that 1000 1-2 bedroom condos does not have the same number of residents as a 300sf house. Bayview has an avg of 1.4 people per unit, and the Richmond is 4.2 (give or take)... but the rest of your logic is correct

The density level would likely be 300-400 times greater
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3576  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 6:56 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
... simply because it would not sell... that's why.

Brigil still hasn't sold out their Phase 1 of a planned 4 towers at Petrie after 4 years... why??, who in their right mind wants to live in a highrise Condo in Orleans??? Sure the setting is spectacular, but the location is not appropriate.

Trust me, these developers are not idiots (except Brigil in the case above), they know what and where to build it
Ditto Richcraft and Place des Gouverneurs just inside the Greenbelt. Although, again, this is neither here nor there for the thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3577  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2010, 5:31 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
LRT in 4 years

Quote:
Doucet promises ambitious light-rail system


The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 7, 2010 12:16 PM

OTTAWA — Mayoral candidate Clive Doucet is promising to bring a light-rail transit system to Ottawa within four years, beginning with an east-west line down Carling Avenue and an extension of the O-Train to serve Ottawa Airport.

A light-rail line along Laurier Street — Doucet's plan doesn't include a tunnel — would combine with existing Albert and Slater street bus routes to increase transit capacity in the downtown core. The rail line would also extend east to Blair Road within the four-year timeframe, he said.

Speaking to supporters Tuesday morning, Doucet also said he would establish a Go Train-like system to serve Smiths Falls, Richmond, Perth and Casselman. He would also join a lobby group to fight for a high-speed Quebec City to Toronto rail link.

Reporter Joanne Chianello is covering Doucet’s press conference. You can follow her reports on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jchianello
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Looks like a sane plan to me. I think a BRT tunnel (using trolley buses) would have a better upgrade path (and still be affordable) because it is grade separated which makes automation possible in the future.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3578  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2010, 11:21 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
Looks like a sane plan to me. I think a BRT tunnel (using trolley buses) would have a better upgrade path (and still be affordable) because it is grade separated which makes automation possible in the future.
What about at-grade full LRT using Albert and Slater (and full use of Mackenzie King Bridge)? Another option is a shorter tunnel (preferably cut-and-cover) while returning to the surface to cross the Mackenzie King Bridge.

The length of the blocks are:

Bronson to Bay - 250m

Bay to Lyon - 140m

Lyon to Kent - 180m

Kent to Bank - 190m

Bank to O'Connor - 180m

O'Connor to Metcalfe - 180m

Metcalfe to Elgin - 190m
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3579  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2010, 1:58 AM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,383
I like everything, but the lack of a tunnel doesn't seem right to me. For future capacity's sake, I would build it. We don't want another Transitway.

Big storm, by the way, eh?

__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3580  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2010, 2:30 AM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
The way I see it, if you spend the money on a tunnel, you want to use an automated, grade separated technology. ALRT is too expensive to grade separate all the way to Orleans and Kanata. So, buses (or urbanaut) with a tunnel. Otherwise, running LRT at grade takes advantage of running trains with at-grade crossings and saves the expense of a tunnel until really necessary. Plus, LRT in 4 years instead of 20+ years into the future.

I don't know why Laurier was specified, maybe to keep popular express buses and to handle Gatineau volume? It seems like more of a detail compared to the "no tunnel" stance.


No delay between lightning and thunder - doesn't get much closer.
__________________
Francois
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 12:22 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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