Canadians want to live, work, and play near public transit

Building on my post yesterday about Ottawa's $72M investment in transit-oriented development, it's interesting to see that more and more Canadians are choosing proximity to transit--and especially rail-based transit--as a key factor in deciding where they'd like to live.

As documented in a Globe and Mail article, consultancy firm PwC (formerly PricewaterhouseCoopers) recently published a report entitled "Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2014." A partner at PwC told the Globe that more and more Canadians are seeing access to transit as a legitimate and foremost consideration when house-shopping:

"With challenging infrastructure in all major Canadian centres coupled with the urbanization trend, there will be a continued demand for retail, office and residential space in our urban centres where there is easy access to mass transit."

In fact, Ottawa's investment in transit and cycling infrastructure also falls in line with the lifestyle preferences of generation Y residents, according to the report:

"Gen Y takes transit, walks, and bikes. Of all the generations, generation Y is the most likely to use transit daily, or at least once per week."

Although Ottawa's decision to move towards rail-based high speed transit is overdue, the city's well-placed to take advantage of these demographics and lifestyle preferences. There's ample room for intensification within Ottawa's Greenbelt, including around the rail stations that will be found along the Confederation Line and, in the future, near the further-out stations along the Stage 2 phase of the light-rail system.

In an ideal world, these preferences will lead to a reinvigoration of those parts of downtown near the Central Business District, including Sparks Street Mall, which seem like dead zones outside of the business hours. Hopefully PWGSC and the NCC are able to recognize the opportunities presented by a more lively downtown and invest some resources to enable a transition towards multi-use development in the core.

New transit commission dominated by suburban councillors

City council's nominating committee submitted its list of councillors slotted on to the various boards, committees, and commissions on Tuesday. Although they will still need to be approved by full council, the new transit commission has eight councillors on it, according to the Ottawa Sun: Stephen Blais, Rainer Bloess, Diane Deans, Steve Desroches, Keith Egli, Shad Qadri, Tim Tierney and Marianne Wilkinson.

One thing you'll likely notice immediately is the heavy presence of suburban councillors, and very little in the way of true 'urban' representation among councillors. Five of the proposed members serve ridings outside the Greenbelt (Stephen Blais [Cumberland], Rainer Bloess [Innes], Steve Desroches [Gloucester-South Nepean], Shad Qadri [Stittsville], and Marianne Wilkinson [Kanata North]), while another two (Diane Deans [Gloucester-Southgate] and Keith Egli [Knoxdale-Merivale]) are just inside the Greenbelt, with their ridings encompassing the outskirts of Ottawa proper and significant portions of the Greenbelt.

Only Tim Tierney (Beacon Hill-Cyrville) represents a ward entirely within the Greenbelt. There is no downtown representation among councillors on the commission.

That's not to say these councillors won't be able to serve admirably on the commission, but it does mean that their direct constituents will rely on, at worst, a hybrid transportation strategy that will almost certainly include the bus complemented by a personal car. How this might affect the strategy OC Transpo employs moving forward remains to be seen.

The transit commission still needs to be filled out with four public citizens. It also remains to be seen how these commission members will be selected. According to Wilkinson, the position will be advertised in local papers and on Ottawa's website; according to Deans, the advertisements should be posted early in the new year.

NCC needs justification to concede Greenbelt land for transit plan

According to the Ottawa Citizen, the National Capital Commission (NCC) is going to have to be convinced by the City of Ottawa that there's good reason to give up land in the Greenbelt for the city's transit plan--and that planners can't assume anything.

The NCC’s executive director of planning, François Lapointe, has written to the city official overseeing the $5-billion transit plan, saying that the NCC is not prepared to hand over a slice of the Greenbelt for the west transitway extension between Bayshore Station and Moodie Drive.

[...]

“It should not be assumed that NCC property is available for new projects, but rather a thorough justification must be presented to demonstrate that all other options are not feasible. Cost alone may not be a sufficient reason to justify the use of NCC property over other potential options,” wrote Lapointe. He encouraged the city to “revisit” the selection of the preferred corridor.

As interesting as this development is with regards to the particular portion within the Greenbelt along the Queensway, it's hugely important with the city looking to build light-rail service along the Ottawa River Parkway into downtown. The NCC, according to this statement, will be insistent that all alternatives be examined--alternatives which include Carling Avenue, Byron Avenue, or any other possible corridor. These are fairly strict guidelines, and the fact that the NCC is insisting that all other options can't simply be proven less desirable, but must be proven "not feasible", it makes the onus on the city significant.

LRT expected to head east first

According to a report on CBC.ca, city staff are recommending that light rail begin along east-west routes rather than the north-south line previously favoured by Mayor Larry O'Brien and some staff. The first-phase recommendation sounds a lot like Implementation Scenario One, which features light rail from Tunney's Pasture in the west to Blair Station in the east, a tunnel downtown, an extension of the O-Train to the south, and bus rapid transit improvements in Kanata and Barrhaven.

According to Ottawa Citizen columnist Randall Denley, the city finally has it right. In Denley's column today:

The decision to go east-west is strongly supported by the numbers. It would attract the most riders, five million a year more than the earlier east-south plan. It would also bring in far more fare revenue, easing the subsidy burden on homeowners.

East-west has a 50-per-cent lower capital cost per passenger kilometre. It also generates $90 million a year in operating cost savings because it takes more buses off the street. The east-west plan would remove 90 per cent of buses from Albert and Slater streets, twice as many as east-south.

Environmentally, east-west wins again. Because it relies more on electric rail, it produces nearly 50 per cent more greenhouse-gas reductions. The east-west line also fits within the city's goal of delivering the high-cost rail service inside the Greenbelt, where most of the riders live.

According to the Ottawa Sun, the change in priority was in large part because of feedback from public meetings, where many said that the east-west route should take precedence. The Sun presented some numbers to explain the change, as well, stating that there are 159,000 all-day east-west riders, compared to only 11,800 all-day riders travelling south.

Time to re-think transit's role in cities

An article in North-Central Connecticut's Journal-Inquirer had a plea for city planners and residents to re-think the role public transit plays in a city's development. Although the article deals with Hartford in particular, it can basically be linked to any city in the world--incuding Ottawa. Substituting a few words to "Ottawa" makes a certain point about what public transit can do for our city:

A good mass-transit system can mean the difference between a thriving metropolitan economy and a mediocre or dead one. With energy and environmental concerns around the world likely to get even more pressing in the years ahead, good mass transit will become more to a city’s comparative advantage. And with a recession and the current price of gasoline, even your average [Ottawa] suburbanite is starting to eye the bus. Could the family, he wonders, get by with one car instead of two?

Think of the great cities in America [or Canada] — Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington, D.C., San Francisco [Toronto]. Come up with your own list. All have great, or at least good, mass-transit systems.

We can only drill so much oil in the next five to 10 years.

We can only make so many hybrid cars in that time.

Is it time for revival of mass transit?

Is it time to invest in it?

Could it help [Ottawa] or greater [Ottawa]?

Could it even help create community, and save us from turning all of [Ottawa's greenbelt and suburbs] into a highway?

[Ottawan] people have never much liked mass transit. We have always preferred cars.

We’d have to change.

'Nuff said.

Chernushenko, part three: Light rail won't intensify growth

Should Ottawa develop the greenbelt? Has development inside the greenbelt been as intense as initially hoped, or have Ottawa's suburbs simply been pushed away? Is it worth it to extend light rail to the suburbs, or should it remain inside the greenbelt?

David Chernushenko suggests that light rail is only part of the solution to a denser urban core.

"The choice of an approach to rail—an Ottawa rail plan—will not on its own result in densification. That has to come through a series of other decisions, all of which are part of a common approach," he says.

"I can’t come down one way or another about whether extending the line to the suburbs or not doing so beyond the greenbelt is or isn’t going to have an expected result."

Chernushenko did say, however, that more established communities ought to be served by light rail before it is extended to budding developments.

"I’m inclined to say, though, that available money should be spent on taking the rail lines out to existing communities, which are already there," he says. "We may not want them to grow in size, but we would love for them to be able to become denser."

_________________

Part Three of David Chernushenko's Reflections on Ottawa Transit, a TransitOttawa.ca exclusive:

Part One: Introduction
Part Two: Cycling
Part Three: Inside the Greenbelt
Part Four: Serving the suburbs
Part Five: Ottawa's subway

If suburbs want light rail, they'll have to earn it

One day after the city's transit committee agreed to support the much-discussed Transit Option Four, they added a special note for any suburban constituents or councillors hoping for expansion of the light rail tracks outside the Greenbelt: you'll have to prove that it's a worthy investment by demonstrating greater demand and higher population density. Surprisingly enough, this was brought forward by Kanata North Councillor Marianne Wilkinson, as recommended by Deputy City Manager Nancy Schepers (from an Ottawa Citizen story):

"What it says is that if you are serious about intensification and get the numbers of people needed to make light-rail expansion work financially, you will get light rail. If not, you won't get it," said Ms. Schepers, who is responsible for the city's planning, transit and environment files. "It provides the incentive to embrace true smart-growth principles."

Very gutsy move by Wilkinson, but it's an obvious attempt to encourage forethought when making planning decisions--not just for transit, but also for zoning and future development.

Ottawa: City, or suburbs?

A great column in the Ottawa Citizen on Sunday by Randall Denley about using transit planning to build Ottawa into a functional city.

Ottawa city councillors' big decision next week on the future of transit is really more about planning than it is about transit. Or at least, it should be. The transit plan councillors recommend will determine what our city will be like in the future. Will it be a dense, urban city where people can live without cars, or is the goal to use commuter trains to enable even more suburban expansion?

[...]

Councillors who argue for rail to go all the way to their suburban wards are taking a stand guaranteed to please their constituents, but it would be poor planning. There just aren't enough people in the suburbs to justify the cost of bringing rail through the Greenbelt to reach them.

If Ottawa is to become a city, and not just a series of suburbs, making the right choice about transit is critical. It's unfortunate that the idea of a dense, vibrant, transit-dependent core has been so poorly sold by staff and politicians at City Hall.

[...]

The transit system we have now reflected its time. The big new thing then was the development of satellite cities connected to the core by a bus transitway. It was a plan to make suburbs a feasible place for downtown workers to live, and it did its job. Unfortunately, this suburban-driven plan never worried too much about all those buses converging on the downtown core. Now, we're focused on making the central part of our city more liveable. The rail and tunnel plan is a big step in that direction.

A very well-written column, all-in-all, and Denley makes a number of good points. If the city's plans put an emphasis on the core, "making the central part of our city more liveable", the suburbs get the shaft; what, then, was the point of amalgamation?

Ottawa residents like transit option four

According to the Ottawa Citizen, residents of the city are, in general, in favour of the fourth option brought forward to City Council for Ottawa's transit improvements.

Transit planners said in a report that "thousands" of people provided their comments on the future of transit in Ottawa in meetings, online, in street interviews and in other ways.

The results, they say, show "broad support for Option 4." That option includes a downtown tunnel and light-rail system running east and west to the edges of the Greenbelt and south past the airport. Under the option, which would cost about $4 billion and be built as funds become available, improved suburban bus transitways would feed into the rail lines.

The fourth option is, by far, the most comprehensive of them--and its estimated cost of $3.82B reflects that (although it is not the most expensive, Option Two is projected at $3.87B). The plan would include both a North-South and an East-West rail line, as well as an underground tunnel downtown. The illustration below, taken from the presentation given to the City Council, shows the plans (click on the picture to enlarge).

Funding Ottawa's transit plans, part one: The Greenbelt

Very interesting exploration today in the Ottawa Business Journal about the future of the City of Ottawa, and the constant debate between municipal and federal interests. The article focuses on the NCC, and public consultations to review the Greenbelt Master Plan. The most interesting part of the story, however, explored the possibility of selling some of the Greenbelt's acreage:

Some well-known developers had recently mused about selling parts of the undeveloped urban territory. Bill Teron, who helped build Kanata, suggested publicly late last year that selling some 6,000 acres (or $3-billion worth) of Greenbelt land would help prevent suburban sprawl around Ottawa, and that the profits earned in selling some of the land could be used to fund an improved and expanded rapid public transit system.

Obviously these facts have to be swallowed with a grain of salt. Both the Ottawa Business Journal and Teron are representatives of business interests, who obviously stand to benefit greatly from the development of the Greenbelt. If citizens benefit as well, however, would it be such a bad thing for a few business leaders to get a little more money?

The possibility of selling some 6,000 acres--roughly 12 per cent of the whole Greenbelt--still seems intriguing, however, and is an opportunity which should be explored. An influx of $3B would greatly offset the costs of the city's newest transit plans (which run at between $3.16B and $3.87B depending on which of the four is chosen). There's also the fact that both Mario Tremblay, a spokesman for the NCC, and John Baird, Ontario's regional federal minister, told the Ottawa Business Journal that there's no rhyme or reason to rumours of a Greenbelt sale (not just a minor detail). Plus it's federal land, and transit is a municipal project.

Personally, I think the Greenbelt has largely failed at it's stated goal of curbing urban sprawl and forming a barricade to protect rural areas. In my opinion, the suburbs have simply been pushed farther from the core and lengthening the commute, and rural areas--which Kanata, Stittsville, and Barrhaven used to be--are being gobbled up for new developments. That doesn't mean I think it should be dismantled, only that maybe a little change in it's direction isn't such a bad idea.

The money developers stand to make on such a project should be significant enough for them to make many concessions. Such as abiding to stringent stipulations about environmental sustainability in construction and urban planning of whatever urban or retail centres might be built up. A small village planned with modern concerns in mind could have a higher population density than many of Ottawa's suburbs do now, an extremely valuable possibility with the city's population continuing to grow. Plus, if land is sold along corridors which the city's transit plans already go through, then it's growth in an area already serviced with public-transit infrastructure; which is incredibly advantageous considering all the talk of how difficult it is to have transit trying to catch up in rapidly-growing urban areas like Kanata, Orleans, and Barrhaven.

Money's something that comes along relatively easily, though (knock on wood); green space isn't nearly as easy to come by. The decision to raffle part of the Greenbelt, even only 12 per cent, is not a decision that anyone can take lightly; after all, it gets pretty difficult to reclaim developed land if we decide that we want the Greenbelt back, and it takes a little while to grow back the plants and welcome back the birds, reptiles, and small mammals that call it their home. Giving up any amount of it is something that must be heavily debated by all stakeholders, and any development in the Greenbelt should come with stipulations of environmental care and sustainability.

With that, I encourage everyone to have your take when the NCC review comes knocking. Re-framing the master plan has great opportunities for the city and it's future, but they could come at a great cost.