HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5381  
Old Posted May 9, 2013, 3:57 PM
BusReader BusReader is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
If you count choice transit users as people who live a car at home (even if it is because they don't want to pay 250 dollars a month for parking), then Ottawa has a huge amount of these. Most of your express ridership out of Kanata, Orleans and Barrhaven is made of these people, as well as many riders from other parts of the city.

70% of the downtown Ottawa workforce commutes by transit. Most of these are well-paying jobs, or at least well-paying enough for people to own a car. Plus most of the city outside the central core is not easily navigable for everyday errands without a car. So people do have cars, even if they leave them at home when they go to and from work.

I suspect a high proportion of OC Transpo passes are NEVER used for anything other than work commuting in the AM and PM peaks in either direction.
Yup, that's our family. Two cars sitting in the driveway every weekday while we use express buses to get to our downtown jobs. Vehicles are used to run around in two different directions on evenings and weekends with kids and errands. And that's a lot of my neighbours as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5382  
Old Posted May 10, 2013, 12:19 AM
Catenary Catenary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOWINYOW View Post
J.OT13
There is bus technology whereby the bus can operate on either battery, battery and diesel or just diesel. Inside the tunnel, buses could operate just with the batteries. This article is a bit dated, but does stipulate such. Page 15, I think.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Ele...s_Analysis.pdf
I believe most of the bus tunnel ideas were likely based on Seattle. They had a bus only tunnel under downtown with articulated buses running under electric trolley lines. When they added LRT through the tunnel in addition to the buses, the trolley lines conflicted so now they use hybrid artics that run in electric only mode underground.

This electric hybrid option would probably work in Ottawa (tunnel stops are closely spaced, high speeds are not reached in a block or two), but I don't think the Seattle tunnel supports nearly the same number of riders as Ottawa would demand, even with LRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5383  
Old Posted May 24, 2013, 6:04 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
I hadn't heard about this: Curitiba's much-vaunted BRT system is reaching its limits, too; and they're moving on to convert their busiest line to a Metro.
http://bettercitiesnow.com/infrastru...medium=twitter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5384  
Old Posted May 27, 2013, 3:43 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
I would love to see at least recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5 implemented in Ottawa, too; I don't know enough about 4 and 7 (and their potential impacts) to say either way, and I don't think 6 (pay for park n' ride) would be helpful at this point in time (hopefully once LRT runs to the park n' rides, that land will be too precious for free surface parking). I'm assuming that 3 could be done easily enough through the property tax system? If not, and it requires any kind of complicated system, then I would drop/postpone it. HOT lanes might only be a longer-term solution as well, one that I think would be best if implemented in conjunction with new capacity projects (e.g., twinning the airport parkway? those new lanes are HOT lanes! when that beauty Limebank highway was built? one regular, one HOT lane!*)

Quote:
Increase HST, tax gas and levy business parking to fund Toronto-area transit, Metrolinx says
  1. a one percentage point increase to the Harmonized Sales Tax, estimated to generate $1.3-billion annually
  2. a five cents per litre regional fuel and gasoline tax, estimated to generate $330-million annually
  3. a business parking levy on all off-street non-residential parking spaces, estimated to generate $350-million annually
  4. development charge amendments, with an estimated annual contribution of $100-million
  5. high-occupancy toll lanes, estimated to generate up to $250-million annually
  6. pay for parking at transit stations, estimated to generate up to $40-million annually
  7. land value capture, estimated to generate at least $20-million annually
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05...etrolinx-says/

* sorry South End, don't mean to single you out, those were just the first examples that came to mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5385  
Old Posted May 27, 2013, 5:21 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
I am stunned that the Mayor didn't immediately dismiss these recommendations out of hand. Simply saying that he wouldn't rule any of them out is literally one of the boldest things he has ever said (because it is more than enough to label him a tax-and-spender who WILL raise the HST)

Quote:

Mayor won't rule out special transit taxes for Ottawa

BY JON WILLING ,OTTAWA SUN
FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, MAY 27, 2013 01:03 PM EDT | UPDATED: MONDAY, MAY 27, 2013 01:08 PM EDT

Mayor Jim Watson wouldn't rule out new taxes to help pay for Ottawa's transit projects.

"I think we have to look at all of the different options," Watson told the Sun Monday. "Politicians can't go out and start talking about increasing transit options for the public, without also talking about where the money is going to come from."

Earlier in the day, Metrolinx pitched a plan for the Toronto and Hamilton areas that would increase the HST by 1% in that area to help pay for transit. The proposal also calls for increases to gasoline taxes, development charges and parking levies around those cities.

Watson said "there's always a bit of skepticism" when governments decide to add a tax for a specific purpose. He would support the auditor general making sure the tax revenue goes directly to transit work.

The mayor acknowledges any talk about adding taxes isn't popular, but Ottawa needs to one day expand its LRT system to the east, west and south with limited money.

For example, the city's preferred option to extend LRT past Tunney's Pasture to Baseline station would cost $900 million. The Confederation Line LRT currently under construction costs $2.1 billion.

Watson said it would be "premature" to rule out new taxes as a revenue option for building transit infrastructure.

"There will be critics out there who will bemoan that statement, but the fact is you can't push and pull on this issue," Watson said. "If you want to expand transit, you have to ask the question, where's the money coming from?"

However, Gloucester-South Nepean Coun. Steve Desroches doesn't like the sound of adding taxes to fund transit. "That wouldn't be the first stop for me," Desroches said. Desroches would rather ask the province to let the city collect development charges for future needs, such as transit projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5386  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 4:25 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,024
When I watched the news yesterday, it sounded like all of Ontario would pay higher taxes to fund transit projects in the GTA. Not that I'm surprised, but this is a serious problem!

Even if the money was distributed evenly between the cities, I would still be against it. If the dim wits at Queen's Park stop doing stupid decisions with our money (e health, cancelling numerous power plant projects when construction already began, the Orange scandal (or whatever the hell that was), studies upon studies... I could go on and on forever) we wouldn't need any extra taxes. And although not involved in this particular bright idea (although they did sign on the HST), same with the Feds (self promotion with the "Action Plan", the Senate...).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5387  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 5:12 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
I understood the proposed tax as just being levvied in the GTHA, and according to this article in the Star, that's how Finance Canada seems to have understood it, too, with Minister Flaherty coming out with a statement that a regional HST would not be permitted under the Canada-Ontario HST agreement:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...n_ontario.html

That wouldn't preclude increasing the HST Province-wide, and e.g., with each municipality getting a per/capita share of the net revenue for their own transportation (and/or other infrastructure) investments. For accountability, this could be implemented similarly to the way the federal Gas Tax Fund works. IIRC there was a provision in the agreement preventing changes to the HST rate for a period of time after the agreement came into force, but I think that it was only the first two years, or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5388  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 5:20 PM
NOWINYOW NOWINYOW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
That wouldn't preclude increasing the HST Province-wide, and e.g., with each municipality getting a per/capita share of the net revenue for their own transportation (and/or other infrastructure) investments. For accountability, this could be implemented similarly to the way the federal Gas Tax Fund works. IIRC there was a provision in the agreement preventing changes to the HST rate for a period of time after the agreement came into force, but I think that it was only the first two years, or so.
I agree the province could raise the rate province-wide. Any argument they make about the increase going directly towards local transportation is simply weak as water. I don't think I need to clarify that point with countless examples.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5389  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 6:16 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
You have examples of the federal Gas Tax Fund and GST rebate programs not working? The Auditor General would love to hear them!

But seriously, it's all about the mechanisms that are put in place to implement it. If there are none, then the revenue will go into the black hole of central revenue like the Health Premium, but if a simple program (like those two federal examples) is established to administer the funding, then there's no reason it shouldn't work beautifully, with minimal overhead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5390  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 6:34 PM
NOWINYOW NOWINYOW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
You have examples of the federal Gas Tax Fund and GST rebate programs not working? The Auditor General would love to hear them!

But seriously, it's all about the mechanisms that are put in place to implement it. If there are none, then the revenue will go into the black hole of central revenue like the Health Premium, but if a simple program (like those two federal examples) is established to administer the funding, then there's no reason it shouldn't work beautifully, with minimal overhead.
I'm skeptical about any new tax or levy or user fee. I'm also skeptical any Gov't is going to willingly put the proper mechanisms in place. There will be a loophole that allows them to put it into the black hole.

Federal income tax to service the debt during WWI. Yeah, right. Ontario Hydro debt reduction "fee"....it's not paid off yet? When will it be paid off and will the fee be removed from our Hydro bills?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5391  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 7:19 PM
Chris-R Chris-R is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOWINYOW View Post
I'm skeptical about any new tax or levy or user fee. I'm also skeptical any Gov't is going to willingly put the proper mechanisms in place. There will be a loophole that allows them to put it into the black hole.

Federal income tax to service the debt during WWI. Yeah, right. Ontario Hydro debt reduction "fee"....it's not paid off yet? When will it be paid off and will the fee be removed from our Hydro bills?
It's not yet paid off. See the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation's Annual Report for 2011.

Reducing nearly $21 billion in completely stranded debt at high interest rates ($38 billion in total debts and liabilities that were held by Ontario Hydro) is no small project and the relative pittance that makes up the surcharge (it raised $944 million in 2010-11 for the OEFC) is not going to get the goal achieved quickly.

The development of province-wide electrical infrastructure was a very expensive project in the first place. Refusing to charge even break-even rates for electricity as part of a long-standing business-attraction strategy had saddled the province with exceptional debts that will take additional decades to pay off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5392  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 7:41 PM
NOWINYOW NOWINYOW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris-R View Post
It's not yet paid off. See the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation's Annual Report for 2011.

Reducing nearly $21 billion in completely stranded debt at high interest rates ($38 billion in total debts and liabilities that were held by Ontario Hydro) is no small project and the relative pittance that makes up the surcharge (it raised $944 million in 2010-11 for the OEFC) is not going to get the goal achieved quickly.
Good on them to be paying debt off. 944 million is NOT a pittance at any level. That way of thinking is what leads to debt.

746 million in revenue received on Interest EARNED? In order to earn interest, especially that amount, there has to be a lot of money elsewhere. Short term interest earned I can understand. Long term interest earned? At what rate? How much capital exists to earn that amount?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5393  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 2:05 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,338
The trouble with the city’s LRT consultation plans

Posted by: David Reevely
June 11, 2013. 9:28 pm • Section: City Hall


The city is surely in for some grief over its decision not to have a big main presentation and Q&A on the latest rendition of the western LRT plan at the next consultation on Monday. Instead, there’ll be separate breakouts with the city’s assorted experts, so if you have a concern you can go and talk it through with someone who knows what he or she is talking about.

You want to talk about cost? Go to this room. You want to ask about the city’s rejection of Carling Avenue as a primary route? Go to that room.

Here’s the explanation Katherine Hobbs has sent constituents:

"Thank you for your email. The public open house on June 17th is a drop in at City Hall between 3 and 8 p.m. Opinions can most certainly be shared, but there will not be a formal presentation as in April. This is primarily because all the information will be provided to you this Thursday by means of a mail drop to your door. That will give you a number of days to review it and should you choose to attend on Monday, you will have the opportunity to speak with any staff member you wish, and to have your questions answered, and have your comments and concerns noted. At the public open house there will be areas you can go to sit with staff and get detailed information on different aspects of the project. It is our hope that this provides better flexibility in allowing meeting participants to review what they want to review, and discuss the areas of interest to them."

It will avoid an ugly faceoff like the one at the last session in April, in which an overflow crowd packed the council chamber at City Hall and things got so ugly that senior city staffers were asked questions and then booed back into their seats when they tried to answer them. That kind of thing is no good. Keith Egli reminded me today of the poor guy who waited till practically midnight last time to say, “Um … I like the city’s plan” because that was decidedly not what the room wanted to hear.

(A moment here for kudos to Egli for, as I’ve heard it, giving a Blackberry’d order at about 9:15, a quarter-hour after the April 25 consultation was supposed to end, that no city staffer was to leave.)

But it also opens the city up to an obvious criticism: that it’s trying to divide and conquer, preventing opposition from coalescing and making it possible for senior people to avoid answering difficult questions in public. The organization and venue (a big group in a room, one question and one answer at a time) that allows a mob to bellow accusations and not listen to responses also happens to be the best way to demand accountability from people from whom the public has the right to expect it. Break everything up and when someone evades a question — or, worst case, just lies — only a handful of people will hear it. Reporters can’t be everywhere for everything. Everyone walks away with a different perspective on what happened. It’s an LRT Rashomon.

If everyone is acting in good faith, the city’s plan for the open house works. The trouble is that the main criticism levelled against the city is that it isn’t. The people who believe that may not be persuadable to the contrary, but structuring the next consultation the way the city’s doing it will only feed their frustration.


http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...ltation-plans/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5394  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 4:28 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,024
Quote:
LRT compromise costs city $80M

The city has added $80 million to the plan to extend LRT west, past Tunney's Pasture, as it tries to satisfy residents who would have trains running past their backyards.



The cost is now $980 million.

Tweaks to the route were presented to councillors and journalists Thursday morning at City Hall.

The changes to the staff-preferred Richmond Underground option for western LRT include 700 metres of tunnel along a controversial 1.2-km stretch along an old CP Rail line owned by the National Capital Commission.

From Dominion station on the Scott St. Transitway, trains would travel in a shallow trench at the edge of Rochester Field before entering the tunnel en route to a new open-air station at Cleary Ave. and continuing through the tunnel under Richmond Rd.

In the previous rendition, the train trench stretched the entire length of the CP Rail line, angering residents who are used to enjoying the greenspace and having unblocked access to the Ottawa River.

The full western LRT route includes a new station near New Orchard Ave. Once trains emerge from the tunnel just before Lincoln Fields, they will travel on the existing segregated bus road to Baseline station.

The cost estimate is still considered Class D, which means it's accurate by +/-25%.

Knoxdale-Merivale Coun. Keith Egli, chairman of council’s transportation committee, said his goal is to keep the cost under $1 billion.

Egli said he believes the changes go a long way to satisfy concerns of residents, but Lesley Taylor of the community group Underground Solutions it’s not good enough.

"I think they're going in the right direction but they need to go a little lower down,” Taylor said.

"We still do not have it underground. It's kind of bermed, not underground."

Egli said two of the biggest concerns the city heard were access to greenspace and ruined vistas. The new plan responds to the worries, he said.

"It will be quieter and it will be must less intrusive into the neighbourhood," Egli said.

Kitchissippi Coun. Katherine Hobbs said there is also a plan to landscape the land over the tunnel, including leavelling out backyards and planting on private properties if residents agree to it.

"Those will be all replicated and put in there and actually improved," Hobbs said.

"There's lots of things to look at and refine and we'll hear from the community going forward."

The Sun put in a request with the NCC to get the federal agency's reaction to the changes.

An open house at City Hall will run from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.

jon.willing@sunmedia.ca

Twitter: @JonathanWilling
http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/06/13/...costs-city-80m

Quote:
Lesley Taylor of the community group Underground Solutions it’s not good enough.

"I think they're going in the right direction but they need to go a little lower down,” Taylor said.

"We still do not have it underground. It's kind of bermed, not underground."

In other words, don't block our view of the river.

Maybe she should check the definition of "underground". I think it means "under the ground". Sounds like what the city is proposing.

Last edited by J.OT13; Jun 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5395  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 4:33 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
The extra cost should be paid entirely by taxpayers in that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5396  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 4:56 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
The extra cost should be paid entirely by taxpayers in that area.
And the NCC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5397  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 5:05 PM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
Definitely they should both be footed the bill. And quite frankly, they will find it worse without rail since with a Carling line all the 90-series routes and express routes will have to continue to operate as usual.
__________________
"However, the Leafs have not won the Cup since 1967, giving them the longest-active Cup drought in the NHL, and thus are the only Original Six team that has not won the Cup since the 1967 NHL expansion." Favorite phrase on the Toronto Maple Leafs Wikipedia page.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5398  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 5:20 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,338
City proposes partially buried western LRT extension, but local critics remain unsatisfied

By David Reevely, OTTAWA CITIZEN June 13, 2013 12:02 PM


OTTAWA — The key to the city’s latest plan for a western extension of its light-rail line is partially burying a 700-metre segment of the line north of Richmond Road.

That section of a longer stretch between Tunney’s Pasture and Baseline station has been controversial since the city proposed in April to run trains along the edge of the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway between Dominion station and Cleary Avenue in McKellar Park.

Residents — many of whom paid a premium for views of the Ottawa River — objected to having trains running within metres of their houses, and the National Capital Commission objected to having tracks on its property instead of green space.

The city’s solution is to run the trains in a deeper trench and to partly cover the line with grass and trees, with just a few openings to the north for ventilation and so riders get some daylight and glimpses of the river. It is not, strictly speaking, a tunnel, though the idea is for it to appear that way from the homes to the south.

“This section covers the area directly adjacent to private homes,” explained deputy city manager Nancy Schepers, presenting the revised plan in a Thursday morning briefing at City Hall.

The plan also makes the line easier to cross on foot: the previous vision had a handful of specially built crossings over a surface line. The new version’s grassy covering will allow people to walk across it almost anywhere. The previous plan made much of improving access to the Ottawa River bank and the revised version improves access further, with the city offering to build pedestrian and bike over- or underpasses at each station that cross not just the transit line but the Macdonald Parkway as well.

That’s clearly meant to appeal to the board of the National Capital Commission, which is skeptical of the city’s request to use its land. As of Thursday morning, Schepers said, the board hadn’t been briefed on the revised vision, but the city’s planners and the NCC’s are working closely together.

“I have confidence, like with the Confederation Line, that we will be able to get to a position where we will be able to get approval to transfer the lands and build the system as shown,” Schepers said.

The Citizen’s call to NCC spokesman Mario Tremblay, asking to speak to commission chairman Russell Mills, wasn’t immediately returned. Mills has previously said he also thinks the city and the NCC can make a deal, though in April they still found themselves too far apart.

The estimated cost of this version of the plan is $980 million, $80 million more than the plan presented in April. Burying the whole line would cost between $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion, according to Delcan’s David Hopper, the city’s lead consultant on the plan. An alternative that would have cut south across Rochester Field (and moved Dominion station there) would have cost about $1.3 billion, for little extra benefit.

Community groups formed to oppose the city’s plan still oppose it.

“We’re not happy with this plan,” said Lesley Taylor, the president of a group called Underground Solution. “We find that, number one, it’s not completely underground, as that’s our mandate. We find that where it does go underground, it’s not really underground, it’s just sort of bermed. We’re worried about the green border and they won’t be able to plant the trees back on top of the train, so that’s eliminating the green border.”

They don’t like the city’s plans for stations at Dominion and Cleary, either, which are close to homes. “Especially at Cleary, the station will really be interfering with the view from the condos, besides just being ugly,” Taylor said.

The city should spend “whatever it takes” to preserve the green space next to the Macdonald Parkway, she said.



dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/City+pr...#ixzz2W7MU7WoB
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5399  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 5:25 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,338
Quote:
They don’t like the city’s plans for stations at Dominion and Cleary, either, which are close to homes. “Especially at Cleary, the station will really be interfering with the view from the condos, besides just being ugly,” Taylor said.
Well I think your condos are ugly, so let's call it even and move ahead with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5400  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 5:42 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
They don’t like the city’s plans for stations at Dominion and Cleary, either, which are close to homes. “Especially at Cleary, the station will really be interfering with the view from the condos, besides just being ugly,” Taylor said.
Gosh, just how tall are these stations going to be?
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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