HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4541  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 10:39 PM
On Edge On Edge is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I disagree. Some of our biggest traffic problems are crossing the Greenbelt and it is getting worse every year.

Running rapid transit only within the Greenbelt will make transit non-competitive for those living or working in the suburbs. This will soon be half the city's population. This just encourages more car dependence.
Maybe so, but prioritizing the outer suburbs encourages more sprawl. We really need a moratorium on sprawl and a focus on encouraging development within the belt, aided by good central rail transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4542  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 12:59 AM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Westboro, Ottawa
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawaresident View Post
I see ... The plan to Tunney's though is like building in the East to Hurdman or Lees. I searched it up and Nepean, Kanata and Barrhaven have 3 times Orleans population. They should not focus on building to Trim ... I would say that building to Jeanne D'Arc is enough for now, maybe they should try to build to Kanata which has a similar population or Barrhaven/Riverside South.
Orleans is much closer in than Kanata & Barrhaven are (seriously, look at a map closely.. the inner edge of the Greenbelt is much farther out in the west) and because it lacks local employment, most of its population works downtown (as opposed to Kanata where most work locally). For these reasons it makes sense to prioritize Orleans--its cheaper to build and there's more demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4543  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 3:05 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
I used to have that opinion, until I realized that thousands of buses ferry people back and forth through the greenbelt every day. Those can be replaced by hundreds of trains, which is much more economically and environmentally sensible.

Where I do question the extension is the Trillium line, where the bus to train replacement ratio is closer to 1 to 1 and won't get significantly better for a long time. A transitway extension would be more than sufficient (probably actually better for the users as it avoids a transfer) for the next several decades, but that extension is pretty much a done deal and its time to move on.
Where is the bus/LRT ratio ever going to be 1:1? Maybe at the edge of Stittsville.

Although the ship has sailed, I think staying within the green belt or limiting to closer terminii would have ensured better quality on these LRT lines, and brought increased frequency to those burbs.

I think Blair, the airport, Fallowfield (only cause of VIA) and Bayshore would have been just fine at terminii. Would have allowed for twin tracked and electrified service till the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4544  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 3:32 AM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,390
In a 'perfect world', where we were designing a new city, then I could agree that keeping the tracks within a boundary could help create a denser city core. Unfortunately, this is not a school exercise; this city, Ottawa, already exists and already has hundreds of thousands of people living outside the Greenbelt. We can’t simply ignore reality to suit an ‘ideal’ that has long-since been destroyed. The tracks must extend out to each of the major suburbs so that the streams of hundreds of buses can be removed from the Greenbelt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4545  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 5:38 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
In a 'perfect world', where we were designing a new city, then I could agree that keeping the tracks within a boundary could help create a denser city core. Unfortunately, this is not a school exercise; this city, Ottawa, already exists and already has hundreds of thousands of people living outside the Greenbelt. We can’t simply ignore reality to suit an ‘ideal’ that has long-since been destroyed. The tracks must extend out to each of the major suburbs so that the streams of hundreds of buses can be removed from the Greenbelt.
This is reality folks. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

Rail is not the author of sprawl. The biggest cause of sprawl is big roads and the lack of efficient transit.

Thanks Richard for being a voice of reason
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4546  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 7:18 AM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
This is reality folks. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

Rail is not the author of sprawl. The biggest cause of sprawl is big roads and the lack of efficient transit.

Thanks Richard for being a voice of reason
The biggest driver of sprawl is the desire of people to live in houses. Really every city in North America has sprawl even New York City where there is very good transit sprawls out from New Jersey and people take the train to the city.
Personally I don't think buses driving through the "greenbelt" matters that much when thousands of cars do the same and really the greenbelt is far from a national park and mostly scrub land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4547  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 12:38 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,939
The problem isn’t just the sprawl, it is the completely realistic expectations of the level of service that can be provided in low density areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4548  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 2:17 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Blacque Jacque Shellacque
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 38,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityTech View Post
Orleans is much closer in than Kanata & Barrhaven are (seriously, look at a map closely.. the inner edge of the Greenbelt is much farther out in the west) and because it lacks local employment, most of its population works downtown (as opposed to Kanata where most work locally). For these reasons it makes sense to prioritize Orleans--its cheaper to build and there's more demand.
Yeah, you have to think that part of the decision to go all the way to Trim is about fruit that's hanging lower on that segment than on others.
__________________
Écoeure pas le peuple.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4549  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 2:39 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
The biggest driver of sprawl is the desire of people to live in houses. Really every city in North America has sprawl even New York City where there is very good transit sprawls out from New Jersey and people take the train to the city.
Personally I don't think buses driving through the "greenbelt" matters that much when thousands of cars do the same and really the greenbelt is far from a national park and mostly scrub land.
Yes, people want to live in houses, especially younger families with children. They need this at an affordable price. We have created a speculative housing market which is driving house prices up faster than incomes. Housing in the centre of the city is not affordable. Not everybody should be expected to live in a condo. This is not our culture, never has been. Historically, those who lived in dense situations were poor and had substandard housing. People wanted away from that situation after the war. This brought us the suburbs and urban renewal.

Regardless, without effective transit, everything is car based. Our development policy for decades has revolved around using cars for almost everything. There needs to be some rethinking on how we build our suburbs so that transit is a bigger part of the equation.

Housing density has actually increased in our suburbs compared to a generation ago. We could achieve more density with a less car-centric model. In that case, we would waste less land on wide boulevards and parking lots. I think this will be difficult to achieve, but transit is part of the answer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4550  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 2:43 PM
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 3,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCCheetos View Post
And then in several decades we'd look back and say "y'know we could have just built light rail in the first place and avoided the mess of a conversion", but you know, for a second time.
Yes, but we will then have had 30-40 years of use out of the transitway. That to me is a reasonable lifetime for such a facility. In the meantime, the local residents will have better service and when it eventually would be converted to rail, there is a good chance that a north/south line to downtown would have been built.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The 1 to 1 ratio only applies today. Inevitable growth in Riverside South and Findlay Creek means that this will change very soon. Also, don't forget the big plans for Rideau-Carleton, which will become one of the city's biggest entertainment hubs and also consequently a major employer. This is only a few years away. Orleans, Barrhaven and even Kanata do not have such an entertainment facility that will likely be used 24 hours a day.
Sure it will grow, but how long will it take for the population to require a significant increase in service? I don't use the 93 and 99, but are they full south of Hunt Club and on the verge of needing a boost in frequency, or are they mostly empty and just providing minimal service with lots of room for increased demand?

Do you really think Rideau-Carleton will create a huge demand for transit? With the need for multiple transfers, I don't see many using the Trillium line to get to/from it. I expect they will continue to provide shuttles to South Keys as there are more options for transfers there. A transitway extension could be more useful to them, if they were given permission to use it (or chartered OC Transpo to provide service).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Where is the bus/LRT ratio ever going to be 1:1? Maybe at the edge of Stittsville.
If you read my post again, I said the the Trillium line extension (i.e. south of the airport). With 4-5 trains an hour, we are talking 70-90 trains a day. The 93 and 99 each have 30 minute service, so between the two, there are only about 80 buses a day.

Quote:
Although the ship has sailed, I think staying within the green belt or limiting to closer terminii would have ensured better quality on these LRT lines, and brought increased frequency to those burbs.

I think Blair, the airport, Fallowfield (only cause of VIA) and Bayshore would have been just fine at terminii. Would have allowed for twin tracked and electrified service till the airport.
I find it ironic you say this when you have been staunchly defending extensions to Trim and Hazeldean.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4551  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 3:03 PM
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 3,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
The biggest driver of sprawl is the desire of people to live in houses. Really every city in North America has sprawl even New York City where there is very good transit sprawls out from New Jersey and people take the train to the city.
I agree. I will add that beyond the desire to live in houses, is the availability of cheap land in the suburbs and roads that allow people to get around quickly. It should be no surprise that sprawl became a problem after the automobile became affordable.

Quote:
Personally I don't think buses driving through the "greenbelt" matters that much when thousands of cars do the same and really the greenbelt is far from a national park and mostly scrub land.
I agree that we need to reduce the number of vehicles, of any type travelling, through the greenbelt. The reduction of buses are an obvious, immediate benefit of rail, but if we can also reduce the number of automobiles, even better.

Having said that, when at or near their capacity, most modern automobiles are surprisingly efficient per passenger. Unfortunately most people use them well below capacity (single occupant or only 2 people in a van or SUV) much of the time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4552  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 4:34 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
This is reality folks. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

Rail is not the author of sprawl. The biggest cause of sprawl is big roads and the lack of efficient transit.
It's not the author of sprawl, but the more we cater the structure of the city's services and institutions to existing sprawliness, the more sprawl we'll end up with and the hollower the core.

At some point Ottawa needs to have a greater ambition than to be a suburb of itself.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4553  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 4:39 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
The problem isn’t just the sprawl, it is the completely realistic expectations of the level of service that can be provided in low density areas.
There are still many people who think "I want to have a single family house with a decent sized yard" and then think "Why can I not have a subway within walking distance?"

The sad thing is, most of our cities in Canada had some sort of Streetcar network. Had those been expanded on instead of ripped up, we would be in a much better position transit wise. Now, we are playing catch up, and I doubt that even our kid will ever see enough transit in their lifetimes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4554  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 4:40 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Yes, people want to live in houses, especially younger families with children.
Absolutely, they do, and the city's planning process, and the developers, should be able to offer people that option.

But what we need to change is the idea that once built in that form with that type of housing, a new neighbourhood can never ever change. We need to future-proof our land-use choices now: people in the future may wish to do something different with their city and their land, just as we now are doing much different things with the Ottawa that was laid out in the 1850s or the 1920s.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4555  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 4:42 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 8,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawaresident View Post
I see ... The plan to Tunney's though is like building in the East to Hurdman or Lees. I searched it up and Nepean, Kanata and Barrhaven have 3 times Orleans population. They should not focus on building to Trim ... I would say that building to Jeanne D'Arc is enough for now, maybe they should try to build to Kanata which has a similar population or Barrhaven/Riverside South.
Kanata is something of a self contained community, with a high proportion of people who live and work in the community. They are also served by a 10 lane highway. Orleans is a bedroom community with most working in Ottawa (and DND at the former Nortel Campus). Transit ridership is also significantly higher in and out of Orleans than the other 2 big suburbs. We could argue that the train should not go further than Place d'Orleans at this point, in order to extend it further west or south, but it's too late to have that conversation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4556  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 5:02 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,185
Quote:
Sure it will grow, but how long will it take for the population to require a significant increase in service? I don't use the 93 and 99, but are they full south of Hunt Club and on the verge of needing a boost in frequency, or are they mostly empty and just providing minimal service with lots of room for increased demand?

Do you really think Rideau-Carleton will create a huge demand for transit? With the need for multiple transfers, I don't see many using the Trillium line to get to/from it. I expect they will continue to provide shuttles to South Keys as there are more options for transfers there. A transitway extension could be more useful to them, if they were given permission to use it (or chartered OC Transpo to provide service).
I use Route 93 from time to time. Its Connexion counterpart Route 293 uses double deckers. This is a pretty busy route especially in peak periods. OC has to put on articulated buses on certain runs during off-peak hours because demand exceeds the limits of a 40 foot bus. Route 93 will only get busier with hundreds of new homes being constructed to the south and east of the existing Findlay Creek subdivision. I can see Route 93 becoming busier than Route 98 in a few years time.

Once rail becomes available, Riverside South will explode in growth. It is being limited by the lack of infrastructure at the present time.

Regarding Rideau-Carleton, I find it strange that the city does not support this facility by connecting it the public transit system when the city directly receives money from its operations. This is a legacy of Gloucester's arrangement when the facility was developed before amalgamation. There is a complimentary service that runs hourly out of Greenboro. Nevertheless, everything changes once Rideau-Carleton is redeveloped and rail runs very close by. It makes sense to run a shuttle out of the closest rail station but with hundreds of employees to be working there, it should be properly integrated with the OC system. We are setting a bad precedent by allowing privately operated transit systems to be established. This is the way American cities operate to the detriment of the public in general. Those systems are only for specific users and often excludes the general public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4557  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 5:07 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,185
Quote:
If you read my post again, I said the the Trillium line extension (i.e. south of the airport). With 4-5 trains an hour, we are talking 70-90 trains a day. The 93 and 99 each have 30 minute service, so between the two, there are only about 80 buses a day.
Route 94 will also be connected to the Trillium Line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4558  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 5:20 PM
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 3,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Route 94 will also be connected to the Trillium Line.
Maybe it will in the future, but it currently doesn't extend east of Riverview, so it isn't a measure of current demand. I expect it will continue to run to Tunney's Pasture at the other end. There may be some who will chose to take it in the opposite direction than currently (if their destination is along the Trillium Line), but I expect they will be in the minority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4559  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 5:24 PM
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 3,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I use Route 93 from time to time. Its Connexion counterpart Route 293 uses double deckers. This is a pretty busy route especially in peak periods. OC has to put on articulated buses on certain runs during off-peak hours because demand exceeds the limits of a 40 foot bus. Route 93 will only get busier with hundreds of new homes being constructed to the south and east of the existing Findlay Creek subdivision. I can see Route 93 becoming busier than Route 98 in a few years time.
Is that capacity needed south or Hunt Club or only necessary for the portion north? An honest question.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4560  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 5:31 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
Is that capacity needed south or Hunt Club or only necessary for the portion north? An honest question.
Route 93's service area is exclusively south of Hunt Club. Route 293 will let off and pick up passengers north of Hunt Club, but the buses are typically full by Hunt Club.
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 2:07 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.