Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I wish we would stop this urban/suburban nonsense. How does this solve anything? If we had not regionalized transit, we would have built more roads instead. There would not be a subway. Without the suburban tax base and suburban transit ridership, we would not be considering a subway now. And the comment about 18% of property tax coming from downtown. Big Deal. More than 18% of transit is oriented towards downtown.

I'd say about 60% of transit, excluding elementary/secondary school trips, is downtown-oriented. Most of the other 40% is focused on key non-downtown destinations around important stations, both urban and suburban.

[Kitchissippi]

To say that most of the public transit is downtown-related is only stating half the equation, because when you are downtown, you can easily say that most of the transit is headed for the suburbs. The truth is, if you live in one of the core neighbourhoods like Centretown, the Glebe or Vanier, transit service has not changed or improved much in three decades. Meanwhile, the current property tax system levies disproportionately a lot more (two to three times) for transit from these inner city neighbourhoods, despite it costing less to service (less mileage, less energy), and many don't even use transit much because they walk and bike more often. Yet the loudest complaints seem to come from the suburbs.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I realize that OC Transpo was the responsibility of the Regional Government of Ottawa-Carlton.

They amalgamated a bunch of responsibilities to form the Regional Government of Ottawa-Carlton in 1969, and eventually, in 1973, they formed OC Transpo. Failure.

If old Ottawa was still old Ottawa and they would have always ran their own transit system, they wouldn't give a damn about the far flung suburbs and build a subway system to serve the central city (like in Montreal) and maybe invest in commuter rail for the suburbs.

And btw, the current transit plan isn't an OC Transpo proposal, it's a City of Ottawa proposal; so again, If old Ottawa was still its own city, they might have been planning a subway to serve Ottawa and not everyone else. The only time OC will have a say in the lrt line is when the city hands them the responsibility of running it in 5 years or so.

If the RMOC had never been formed, without a doubt the suburbs would be even more sprawly than they are today and there would be lower transit ridership with more suburbanites clogging Ottawa's roads in their cars, all without paying for any of it.

With lower transit ridership, there'd be even less rationale for a subway than there already is.

The best thing that could have happened in 1969 was full annexation of all non-rural areas surrounding Ottawa and the creation of an ongoing annexation policy to ensure that any future greenfield development occurred under the control of the City of Ottawa (i.e. as it does now). Carleton County could have remained in place for the rural areas, probably along with the dissolution of Nepean and Gloucester townships by amalgamating them with other townships.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Dado

If the RMOC had never been formed, without a doubt the suburbs would be even more sprawly than they are today and there would be lower transit ridership with more suburbanites clogging Ottawa's roads in their cars, all without paying for any of it.

With lower transit ridership, there'd be even less rationale for a subway than there already is.

The best thing that could have happened in 1969 was full annexation of all non-rural areas surrounding Ottawa and the creation of an ongoing annexation policy to ensure that any future greenfield development occurred under the control of the City of Ottawa (i.e. as it does now). Carleton County could have remained in place for the rural areas, probably along with the dissolution of Nepean and Gloucester townships by amalgamating them with other townships.

Would have made more sense than what we have now. I'm really not a fan of the suburbs being part of Ottawa, but when I see the "Welcome to Ottawa, pop 900,000" 15 km west of Richmond, .

[lrt's friend]

The fact that Ontario imposed first regional government and then amalgamation has allowed for a regional transit authority, Quebec excepted. We just have to look south of the border to see the mess that was created by allowing every suburb to be incorporated separately. The result has been the rotting of many central cities without an adequate tax base to maintain services including transit. It has allowed for suburbs to opt out of regional transit aurthorities making it very difficult to create effective transit systems. A perfect example is Detroit where the city proper has simply crumbled while the rich suburbs can afford to provide good services and because of this there is absolutely no incentive or desire to amalgamate. Who would want to pay for Detroit's mess with suburban taxes?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The fact that Ontario imposed first regional government and then amalgamation has allowed for a regional transit authority, Quebec excepted. We just have to look south of the border to see the mess that was created by allowing every suburb to be incorporated separately. The result has been the rotting of many central cities without an adequate tax base to maintain services including transit. It has allowed for suburbs to opt out of regional transit aurthorities making it very difficult to create effective transit systems. A perfect example is Detroit where the city proper has simply crumbled while the rich suburbs can afford to provide good services and because of this there is absolutely no incentive or desire to amalgamate. Who would want to pay for Detroit's mess with suburban taxes?

Good point, it may partly explain the generally low transit ridership in the US. And I might have overlooked the Gatineau issue.

A metropolitan transit authority might be the best way to go. But we need to be clear on what every part of the region needs; subways in the city, high capacity lrt in the big suburbs (Kanata, Barrhaven, Orleans, Gatineau and maybe Rockland since they don't have any existing rail links) meeting in one or two tunnels downtown and commuter rail in the far reaching suburbs/villages (Carleton Place, Smith Falls, Kemptville, Casselman...).

And NO BUS WAYS whatsoever!!!

We can't get everything in one shot, so start with the LRT and maybe commuter rail since it is fairly cheap, than build the subways in 30 years or so.

I still don't think Carp, Richmond, Munster, and Manotick should be part of Ottawa.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Good point, it may partly explain the generally low transit ridership in the US. And I might have overlooked the Gatineau issue.

A metropolitan transit authority might be the best way to go.

You're coming full circle here: that's exactly what OC Transpo was envisaged to be.

But we need to be clear on what every part of the region needs; subways in the city, high capacity lrt in the big suburbs (Kanata, Barrhaven, Orleans, Gatineau and maybe Rockland since they don't have any existing rail links) meeting in one or two tunnels downtown and commuter rail in the far reaching suburbs/villages (Carleton Place, Smith Falls, Kemptville, Casselman...).

And NO BUS WAYS whatsoever!!!

We can't get everything in one shot, so start with the LRT and maybe commuter rail since it is fairly cheap, than build the subways in 30 years or so.

I still don't think Carp, Richmond, Munster, and Manotick should be part of Ottawa.

Perhaps not, but if they aren't part of Ottawa what is to prevent them from enlarging themselves and becoming the next leap-frog sprawlburbs if they are in a separate county with no oversight from Ottawa?

To some extent we're already seeing this with some of the towns outside Ottawa, like Arnprior, Kemptville and especially Rockland and Carleton Place, but at least the distance keeps the effect muted. That would not be the case with the villages you've listed, other than maybe Munster which is a bit of a slow trek whichever way you go. You'd want to make sure you weren't just creating the conditions for a new round of Nepean, Gloucester and Kanata. As silly as it seems for Ottawa to have control over a vast rural hinterland, we have at least got a handle on suburban development and expansion, the OMB notwithstanding. It could be a lot better - but it could also be a lot worse.


Now Carp and Richmond, being on rail lines, actually do have some potential to grow along Anglo-Dutch 'new town' concepts if there was a decent commuter or especially regional rail system in place, but that's out in dreamworld land right now.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Dado

Perhaps not, but if they aren't part of Ottawa what is to prevent them from enlarging themselves and becoming the next leap-frog sprawlburbs if they are in a separate county with no oversight from Ottawa?

Have you seen Richmond, Carp and Manotick recently? Sure the city has it's strict "urban boundry" around the big three suburbs, but developpement has leapfroged (remember the Greenbelt) over this urnban boundry and we are seing intense suburbanization despite being part of Ottawa.

Check out all the applications for subdivisions in the Rideau-Goulborne ward. http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...tion=as&page=1

Here are just two of the largest ones, and we have plenty more already built;

Manotick;

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__7OF8H1

Richmond;

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__8OM0JF

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

If there was no OC Transpo and the other former municipalities had to rely on transit themselves, most likely there would be very little transit in some of them, perhaps because voters would not want to add the taxes necessary. That is especially true outside the Greenbelt.

Bingo.

Without some kind of central (or non-central but over-arching) authority, transit in a metropolitan, multi-municipality area is going to be piecemeal and spotty.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The fact that Ontario imposed first regional government and then amalgamation has allowed for a regional transit authority, Quebec excepted. We just have to look south of the border to see the mess that was created by allowing every suburb to be incorporated separately.

OTOH, you have had, until recently, unamalgamated Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Gatineau, Montreal, Quebec, and Halifax; all of which have had problems both due to the lack of amalgamation (and despite amalgamation, for that matter), but nothing like the wholesale rot that has happened in too many major US metropolitan areas.

And OTOOH, you have very much unamalgamated Vancouver and Victoria, which are among the most vibrant, attractive, and best-governed urban areas in the country.

And OTOOOH, there's the progressively-amalgamated Calgary, vs. the somewhat, but not entirely, amalgamated Edmonton.

All of which is to say: amalgamation, agglomeration, loose confederation; none of these political structures seem to explain the very different Canadian and American urban experience; other cultural and economic factors are at play.

[jeremy_haak]

Vancouver is a bit exceptional due to the heavy hand that the province has in its urban affairs.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I wish we would stop this urban/suburban nonsense. How does this solve anything? If we had not regionalized transit, we would have built more roads instead. There would not be a subway. Without the suburban tax base and suburban transit ridership, we would not be considering a subway now. And the comment about 18% of property tax coming from downtown. Big Deal. More than 18% of transit is oriented towards downtown.

Ditto. We face our problems together as a city, or we don't and the problems remain. Arguing against another area of the city is not the way to go. It has been depressing seeing many of the Richmond/Byron LRT opposition devolve to bashing Kanata and the unwanted commuters. It almost seems like the correct answer to where transit should stop is always "my neighbourhood" regardless of where that neighbourhood is. Anyone farther out is a freeloader and morally reprehensible.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

All of which is to say: amalgamation, agglomeration, loose confederation; none of these political structures seem to explain the very different Canadian and American urban experience; other cultural and economic factors are at play.

I'd put it down to less income inequality and multi-generational poverty (e.g. racial ghettos). We don't write off large central sections of our cities because our poorer areas aren't that large, or that bad.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Meanwhile, the current property tax system levies disproportionately a lot more (two to three times) for transit from these inner city neighbourhoods, despite it costing less to service (less mileage, less energy), and many don't even use transit much because they walk and bike more often. Yet the loudest complaints seem to come from the suburbs.

That's not a transit cost-sharing problem. That's a property tax design issue. I think you could make a good argument that transit costs shouldn't follow the same ratio, and should be adjusted to reflect distance (cost more) and ridership (cost less).

If neighbourhoods had an incentive to push for changes that promoted more transit usage then you'd probably see some interesting changes.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

That's not a transit cost-sharing problem. That's a property tax design issue. I think you could make a good argument that transit costs shouldn't follow the same ratio, and should be adjusted to reflect distance (cost more) and ridership (cost less).

If neighbourhoods had an incentive to push for changes that promoted more transit usage then you'd probably see some interesting changes.

Not just transit. If neighbourhoods got charged for the real cost of maintaining, lighting, and plowing their streets, watering them, flushing away their poo, and collecting their garbage and recycling, then you'd see all kinds of things change pretty damn quick.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Not just transit. If neighbourhoods got charged for the real cost of maintaining, lighting, and plowing their streets, watering them, flushing away their poo, and collecting their garbage and recycling, then you'd see all kinds of things change pretty damn quick.

hear hear

[J.OT13]

O-Train service expansion coming soon.

Transpo schedules 18-week O-Train shutdown in 2013

OC Transpo is planning an 18-week shutdown of the O-Train starting next spring while it completes a $59-million service expansion.

The shutdown is scheduled for April 27 to Sept. 2, 2013. A replacement bus service will run parallel to all five O-Train stations, GM John Manconi told council and transit commissioners earlier this week in a memo.

Transpo is adding six new train sets to increase frequency to eight minutes from the current 15 minutes.

The work includes installing passing tracks at Gladstone Ave. and near Brookfield Rd., plus upgrades to stations and the train yard.

The city is also improving the Rideau River bridge, Carleton University pedestrian pathway and Sawmill Creek bridges, Dows Lake tunnel and the Hwy. 417 overpass retaining walls.

When Transpo received approval for the service expansion last year, staff warned council there would be a service disruption to the O-Train in 2013, although the initial estimate was a maximum of 16 weeks.

[MountainView]

I hope the station shelters get a retrofit - possibly with doors because it gets quite windy down there in the winter.

[J.OT13]

With all the new condos at Carling and overall extra ridership from the DOTT construction, they certainlydo need to make them more user-friendly.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by MountainView

I hope the station shelters get a retrofit - possibly with doors because it gets quite windy down there in the winter.

Also: more sheer physical space. Carleton's been woefully undersized from the beginning, at least during the school year. Wouldn't have taken much money or effort to resolve the crowding problem, but, nope, it's been that way for a decade now.