LRT Stage 3

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we want to capture people coming in on the 417, it is time to think of commuter rail on the VIA rail line that serves that very corridor. I am not that keen on spending a whole pile of our property tax money on very expensive LRT to serve those mostly coming from outside Ottawa. Time for the province to start putting a little cash in.

It's way cheaper to let the relatively small number of exurbanites keep on driving (which they all already do) and have them leave their cars outside the city, than to provide them with special train service which only a fraction of them will take and will end up being subsidized by all of us.

The LRT extension to that part of town is useful for people in the city not just those from the outside. Plus if it reduces the amount of cars downtown everyone benefits.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Do you want sprawl like the GTA? Because this is how you get sprawl like the GTA.

The GO Train system has probably contributed as much (if not more) than the freeway network in the GTA to sprawl.

It's bad enough they want to take the LRT to the end of Olreans and Kanata. Adding a commuter rail system on top would make this city more of a sprawling suburban mess than even its current destiny.

I would say that the sprawl is the fault of local governments allowing so much single family homes. GO helps people move to a place they can afford more of what they want.

Building it as a low floor LRT was the first mistake as it does not really support a large population. Double the population within the same boundaries and the LRT wouldn't be able to keep up. This is where having a Commuter rail system. Run it on existing rail. Run it to the next stop that is outside the city. For example, on the VIA line from Toronto, Smith Falls could be the furthest station. Ad a few stations, spacing them

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Good God. Why?

I would like to see Metrolinx become restricted to the GTHA. And take over all GTHA transport, including roads and cab licensing. A la Transport for London.

Split Presto off and make it an MTO Division since it applies provincially.

As for Ontario Northland, talk with VIA about taking it over and provide a service charter and subsidies to enable VIA operating it.

Metrolinx taking over all of the transit in the GTHA would be good. ON being taken over by VIA makes no sense as VIA does not do bus service.

Presto should be part of MTO, just like all the transit and ONTC should be.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Good God. Why?

I would like to see Metrolinx become restricted to the GTHA. And take over all GTHA transport, including roads and cab licensing. A la Transport for London.

Split Presto off and make it an MTO Division since it applies provincially.

As for Ontario Northland, talk with VIA about taking it over and provide a service charter and subsidies to enable VIA operating it.

The future of Ontario Northland (and present) is bus routes.
VIA is a Federal agency. The mandate for intercity travel through the highway 17 / 11 corridors would be a very strange match for VIA rail.

On sprawl. Sprawl is fundamentally driven by market demands which is to say: people *want* sprawl. We have a lot of 'wants' with negative effects and sprawl is just that. A want that has negatives. To say sprawl is driven primarily by anything other then human desire is misplaced. IMO

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why do you want to make even more government cy?

Because I will always fight for essential services for the areas that fall outside the myopic Toronto focus of this Province. [1]

That's Ontario Northland. Which has primary 2 axis: North on 11 (Toronto > North Bay > Highway 11 North to Hearst.) And East/West on Highway 17 (Sault > North Shore > Sudbury > North Bay > the Ottawa Valley > Ottawa.)

There is a logic to creating an agency with enough mass to keep Northland strong and establish regional transit service in the Ottawa region. Geographically these areas are linked and synergy can be achieved.

I'm no expert on this stuff but my ideal would to have 2 separate agencies, under the overwatch of the MTO, in charge of operations and planning. One would be in charge of southern Ontario and the GTHA. The other would be in charge of Northern Ontario and the Greater Ottawa Area. Presto would be a division of the MTO.

And here is where things get interesting: both agencies would share the GO Transit brand (decisions on the brand made jointly steered by the MTO) and Ontario Northland would be the brand for the intercity services of Northern Ontario: i.e GO Northland.
The brand is to iconic not to do this haha.

As an aside, I have long wanted to see Presto integrated into every drivers licence and I would like to see the province eliminate the front plate on cars and only have a rear plate. These new plates should include a transponder for road pricing since we pioneered this technology with public funds and gave way the leadership on this when the 407 got sold off. This will become more important in the age of electric cars allowing out the gas tax.


[1] This is a crititism directed largely at the average citizen of Ontario. The government is not as myopic as the minds of the people in this province.

The creation of just one super agency for the entire province would dilute the reasons for having a separate agency for Toronto and would just mean shipping jobs (and thus the focus of minds) to Toronto in the name of "less bureaucracy" "efficiencies". ONTC would be shipped outta North Bay very quickly.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

Because I will always fight for essential services for the areas that fall outside the myopic Toronto focus of this Province. [1]

That's Ontario Northland. Which has primary 2 axis: North on 11 (Toronto > North Bay > Highway 11 North to Hearst.) And East/West on Highway 17 (Sault > North Shore > Sudbury > North Bay > the Ottawa Valley > Ottawa.).

You forgot the 3rd axis; Sault Ste Marie > Sudbury > Toronto via Hwy 17 and 69/400.

Note that the Hearst to Toronto is basically the route of the old ONR/VIA Northland train and Sault Ste Marie to Sudbury is the route of the old CP RDC to Sudbury with a connection to the Canadian to Toronto/Montreal via Ottawa. The demise of these trains is due in part to the "myopic Toronto focus" as well as Ottawa's.

Originally Posted by Mikeed

There is a logic to creating an agency with enough mass to keep Northland strong and establish regional transit service in the Ottawa region. Geographically these areas are linked and synergy can be achieved.

I'm no expert on this stuff but my ideal would to have 2 separate agencies, under the overwatch of the MTO, in charge of operations and planning. One would be in charge of southern Ontario and the GTHA. The other would be in charge of Northern Ontario and the Greater Ottawa Area. Presto would be a division of the MTO.

This idea has some merit, but ultimately subsidizing bus or rail service is a political function and that means it will always be subject to pressures from the south. Having people in the "North" operate and manage the system makes more sense than just having 2 agencies, most based in the "south". Ottawa is not "north".

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

On sprawl. Sprawl is fundamentally driven by market demands which is to say: people *want* sprawl. We have a lot of 'wants' with negative effects and sprawl is just that. A want that has negatives. To say sprawl is driven primarily by anything other then human desire is misplaced. IMO

Sprawl is mostly policy-driven: stupid land-use policies, stupid street-layout policies, stupid municipal taxation and revenue policies, stupid transit and transportation policies. What people "want" are single-family homes. That want can be accommodated without it constituting sprawl, as it used to be until after 1945.

Sprawl is the result of really really stupid policies that have now been frozen in time for almost 80 years. If we truly decide we don't want sprawl any more, we can change that while still accommodating the "want".

Funnily enough, there are also a lot of people who "want" pre-war style living and development, but somehow the market and our policies are failing to accommodate that want. Wonder why?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

As an aside, I have long wanted to see Presto integrated into every drivers licence and I would like to see the province eliminate the front plate on cars and only have a rear plate.

Yes, if there's anything Ontario drivers need, it's even less accountability for their actions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Metrolinx taking over all of the transit in the GTHA would be good. ON being taken over by VIA makes no sense as VIA does not do bus service.

Presto should be part of MTO, just like all the transit and ONTC should be.

Originally Posted by Mikeed

The future of Ontario Northland (and present) is bus routes.
VIA is a Federal agency. The mandate for intercity travel through the highway 17 / 11 corridors would be a very strange match for VIA rail.

VIA operates several services that are exclusively intra-provincial already. There's absolutely nothing from a policy or legislative perspective preventing them from act as the contracted operator for Ontario Northland services.

Specifically, I am thinking of the Amtrak model where states contract Amtrak to run services and provide the funding to do so. Have a look at Amtrak's services in California. Trains and buses run by Amtrak and subsidized by the State of California.

Originally Posted by Mikeed

On sprawl. Sprawl is fundamentally driven by market demands which is to say: people *want* sprawl. We have a lot of 'wants' with negative effects and sprawl is just that. A want that has negatives. To say sprawl is driven primarily by anything other then human desire is misplaced. IMO

No. Sprawl is a direct consequence of policy choices. Specifically, vastly undertaxing and overprovisioning lower density areas and facilitating car commutes. What do you think would happen to those preferences if there was a congestion charge into the Greenbelt and every parking spot in the city got a $1000 per year additional tax, or if the suburbs saw 30-50% higher mill rates to reflect the cost of servicing them?

Lastly, we either take climate change seriously. Or we don't. You can't claim there's a climate emergency and then insist on zero change to the suburban SUV 45 min peak traffic commuting lifestyle. I prefer to call those hypocrites out for who they are.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Sprawl is mostly policy-driven: stupid land-use policies, stupid street-layout policies, stupid municipal taxation and revenue policies, stupid transit and transportation policies. What people "want" are single-family homes. That want can be accommodated without it constituting sprawl, as it used to be until after 1945.

Sprawl is the result of really really stupid policies that have now been frozen in time for almost 80 years. If we truly decide we don't want sprawl any more, we can change that while still accommodating the "want".

Funnily enough, there are also a lot of people who "want" pre-war style living and development, but somehow the market and our policies are failing to accommodate that want. Wonder why?

That's half the battle. Even when they do build condos, they build them to sell to single twentysomethings or widowed seniors. There is zero thought to given to accomodating families. We're now at the point where 1000sqft condos are sold as 3 Bedrooms. Ask a builder about it? Their proposed solution is for you to buy the one bedroom unit next door and custom build a massive unit.

And on the house front, it's amazing how much pressure it's taken just to get builders to put up more towns and semis.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

No. Sprawl is a direct consequence of policy choices. Specifically, vastly undertaxing and overprovisioning lower density areas and facilitating car commutes. What do you think would happen to those preferences if there was a congestion charge into the Greenbelt and every parking spot in the city got a $1000 per year additional tax, or if the suburbs saw 30-50% higher mill rates to reflect the cost of servicing them?

Lastly, we either take climate change seriously. Or we don't. You can't claim there's a climate emergency and then insist on zero change to the suburban SUV 45 min peak traffic commuting lifestyle. I prefer to call those hypocrites out for who they are.

Almost nobody takes it seriously. Maybe 10-20% max. The rest are happy to vote for someone else to pay for it. Popular in Toronto and Quebec to block pipelines but they love driving from the SFH to work everyday and flying to Europe.

People want to live in houses and commute by car. Including many who claim climate change is a priority. I'll admit it's not a priority for me and yet my footprint is smaller than many as I walk to work and live in a very small unit.

Builders build what people want. I would love to live in a downtown condo with my large family but the cost makes it silly here in Ottawa so naturally builders aren't building 2000 Sq FT condos when a house a few blocks away can be had for less.

[eltodesukane]

The fact is that climate change is good for Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Detroit, Chicago, …
No wonder climate change is a distant priority for people around here.
Of course climate change is bad for many other locations.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

The fact is that climate change is good for Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Detroit, Chicago, …
No wonder climate change is a distant priority for people around here.
Of course climate change is bad for many other locations.

How is climate change good for any of the above cities? Are you suggesting because it will be warmer it will be better?

Winter is actually of great help as the cold kills off many bugs such as ticks and other bugs seen further south. That is why ticks are becoming more prevalent in our area now as they march further north.

The snow provides an annual spring time addition to the ground water table since rain in the winter only produces run off since the frozen ground cannot absorb water.

The colder temperatures are important for the survival of the boreal forest of conifers as they do not grow as well in warmer climates. This would have a big effect on the forestry industry.

The snow actually contributes to another season tourism allowing people to enjoy the outdoors which is an economic plus.

We will get more unreliable weather with more severe storms of all types; including hurricanes and tornados.

Yes, we burn more carbon to heat our homes, better insulation and different energy sources can solve that issue.

I would say that you need to get out more and then you might have an appreciation for winter and actually enjoy it. Get your skates, skis, snow shoes, winter boots and toboggan and venture forth. Oh I know you will probably say that I am wacko green outdoor weirdo environmentalist but I drive a SUV and heat my house with natural gas too, so I am also part of the problem.

[OTownandDown]

People from Chapleau, Thunder Bay, and points to Wawa will roll their eyes and say "typical Toronto thinking" when they hear that there's only two axis of travel across the province, neither serving them, or going anywhere useful, nor covering even 20% of the province's land area.

Toronto - Ottawa is arguably a southern route, and one that doesn't need 'Northern' services. Routes between cities of millions of people never really will need special funding (except if it's for Train Nostalgia). Don't get me wrong, I love the train, but it's not financially working out.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

[/B]

You forgot the 3rd axis; Sault Ste Marie > Sudbury > Toronto via Hwy 17 and 69/400.

Note that the Hearst to Toronto is basically the route of the old ONR/VIA Northland train and Sault Ste Marie to Sudbury is the route of the old CP RDC to Sudbury with a connection to the Canadian to Toronto/Montreal via Ottawa. The demise of these trains is due in part to the "myopic Toronto focus" as well as Ottawa's.




This idea has some merit, but ultimately subsidizing bus or rail service is a political function and that means it will always be subject to pressures from the south. Having people in the "North" operate and manage the system makes more sense than just having 2 agencies, most based in the "south". Ottawa is not "north".

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Sprawl is mostly policy-driven: stupid land-use policies, stupid street-layout policies, stupid municipal taxation and revenue policies, stupid transit and transportation policies. What people "want" are single-family homes. That want can be accommodated without it constituting sprawl, as it used to be until after 1945.

Sprawl is the result of really really stupid policies that have now been frozen in time for almost 80 years. If we truly decide we don't want sprawl any more, we can change that while still accommodating the "want".

Funnily enough, there are also a lot of people who "want" pre-war style living and development, but somehow the market and our policies are failing to accommodate that want. Wonder why?

I agree 100% with all of this. Very well said. I'd add that it's a relatively recent phenomenon in human history that "wants" are treated as somehow sacrosanct things that society has some sort of an obligation to fulfill. People want to be able to own a 4 bedroom home with two cars and a pool and drive into work with no traffic and park right at their office's doorstep. People want tax cuts and more government programs and to eat whatever they want but never gain weight. Eventually the laws of reality step in and will force people to accept something other than their wants. The only question is whether we create a system where, when that reality comes crashing down on people, it's manageable because we've made a robust system with sustainable alternatives and different options or it's an ordeal because all we've built is a monoculture of auto-dependent, pedestrian-hostile, suburban shit.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

How is climate change good for any of the above cities? Are you suggesting because it will be warmer it will be better?

Winter is actually of great help as the cold kills off many bugs such as ticks and other bugs seen further south. That is why ticks are becoming more prevalent in our area now as they march further north.

The snow provides an annual spring time addition to the ground water table since rain in the winter only produces run off since the frozen ground cannot absorb water.

The colder temperatures are important for the survival of the boreal forest of conifers as they do not grow as well in warmer climates. This would have a big effect on the forestry industry.

The snow actually contributes to another season tourism allowing people to enjoy the outdoors which is an economic plus.

We will get more unreliable weather with more severe storms of all types; including hurricanes and tornados.

Yes, we burn more carbon to heat our homes, better insulation and different energy sources can solve that issue.

I would say that you need to get out more and then you might have an appreciation for winter and actually enjoy it. Get your skates, skis, snow shoes, winter boots and toboggan and venture forth. Oh I know you will probably say that I am wacko green outdoor weirdo environmentalist but I drive a SUV and heat my house with natural gas too, so I am also part of the problem.

A concrete example of your first point is the Mountain Pine Beetle. It's endemic to North America but its population was kept in check for all of human history up until recently because temperatures below -40C kill 99% of their larvae. Now with climate change, even in the extreme north of Alberta and BC bordering the territories, it doesn't get that cold anymore and the result is an infestation that's 10x worse than any other previously recorded infestation. BC alone has lost more than 160,000 km2 of forests, Alberta's probably roughly comparable. In the US, it's more than double that amount.

Alberta's spent a half a billion dollars fighting this, Parks Canada has probably spent about the same. And this doesn't count the losses to the private sector, especially the forestry and tourism industries.

And on the bigger scale, this infestation has caused our entire massive forests to become a net carbon emitter rather than net carbon sink since 2001.

When you add up both the absorption and emission, Canada's forests haven't been a net carbon sink since 2001. Due largely to forest fires and insect infestations, the trees have actually added to our country's greenhouse gas emissions for each of the past 15 years on record.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...urce-1.5011490

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...snap-1.4470173

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Builders build what people want.

Except that they don't: there's a massive and untapped market for urban living, as evidenced by the fact that it's ridiculously expensive to buy a house in an urban area. People would live in new, truly urban (not suburban) areas as well, if our land-use and transport policies weren't trash, and if builders had any imagination.

It is entirely possible to satisfy the demand for new single-family houses without such developments being sprawly in nature.

[lrt's friend]

Forests have historically been renewed by natural forest fires across most of North America. Because of the forestry industry, and human encroachment, we have controlled forest fires as well as we can. Without natural renewal, insects will accomplish the same thing and kill the trees. Drought and insects accumulate forest litter that build up the risk of catastrophic fires. I am not a climate change denier but forest management itself has increased forest fire and insect infestation risks beyond climate change.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Except that they don't: there's a massive and untapped market for urban living, as evidenced by the fact that it's ridiculously expensive to buy a house in an urban area. People would live in new, truly urban (not suburban) areas as well, if our land-use and transport policies weren't trash, and if builders had any imagination.

It is entirely possible to satisfy the demand for new single-family houses without such developments being sprawly in nature.

Yes, we don't need to restrict choices of housing. The problem is transportation policy that requires sprawly development to maintain the status quo, the auto culture. We don't even want to experiment with a different approach. Even as many say they support things like rail transit and cycle infrastructure, these same people want to punish the majority by re-enforcing the auto culture through most of the city.

I have advocated a transit grid, and bringing transit to the people, instead of forcing people to transit. Yes, this will cost money, but maintaining and re-enforcing the auto culture will in the long-run cost a lot more.

We need more auto alternatives and this will support more compact development.

Part of the problem is the choices being made by corporations to provide the lowest prices possible. Everything is built as cheaply as possible including commercial development. But the city maintains the transportation infrastructure and as we continue to build our city as cheaply as possible, the city portion, transportation, will continue to increase in cost. So we as taxpayers are subsidizing corporate cheap development such as big box shopping centres and sprawly subdivisions.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, we don't need to restrict choices of housing. The problem is transportation policy that requires sprawly development to maintain the status quo, the auto culture. We don't even want to experiment with a different approach. Even as many say they support things like rail transit and cycle infrastructure, these same people want to punish the majority by re-enforcing the auto culture through most of the city.

I have advocated a transit grid, and bringing transit to the people, instead of forcing people to transit. Yes, this will cost money, but maintaining and re-enforcing the auto culture will in the long-run cost a lot more.

We need more auto alternatives and this will support more compact development.

Part of the problem is the choices being made by corporations to provide the lowest prices possible. Everything is built as cheaply as possible including commercial development. But the city maintains the transportation infrastructure and as we continue to build our city as cheaply as possible, the city portion, transportation, will continue to increase in cost. So we as taxpayers are subsidizing corporate cheap development such as big box shopping centres and sprawly subdivisions.

Very well-said.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Except that they don't: there's a massive and untapped market for urban living, as evidenced by the fact that it's ridiculously expensive to buy a house in an urban area. People would live in new, truly urban (not suburban) areas as well, if our land-use and transport policies weren't trash, and if builders had any imagination.

It is entirely possible to satisfy the demand for new single-family houses without such developments being sprawly in nature.

Maybe a better way of saying it would be, "Builders build what people want, if it is financially viable." Sure some people want urban living, but is it a viable proposition to provide affordable urban living to the masses? Even if they could make money doing it, they likely make more money building suburban sprawl. Builders will build what makes them the most money.