Find alternate use for rail line, says Mayor

[SaggyBalls]

The O Train Rail line hooks up to a CP line between Ottawa and Kemptville, a growing community in the Heart of North Grenville. Years ago we lost our Voyageur Bus route and there's only yellow charter buses that connect non-auto commuters to the city that's technically only across the river.

Halfway to the border, North Grenville's in a great place for a satellite community: far enough away from the city to be its own entity, but close enough to be a short commute...less than an hour to downtown in the morning.

EMC News - Once the Ottawa Valley Railway's tracks are torn up, this transportation infrastructure will be lost to eastern Ontario forever, says Smiths Falls Mayor Dennis Staples.

The mayor, who along with town councillor Ken Graham attended a meeting of concerned Ottawa Valley municipal representatives hosted by Petawawa Mayor Bob Sweet, said that if freight traffic is insufficient to justify the rail line's continued existence, the viability of commuter rail service needs to be explored.

The meeting March 11 attracted representation from Lanark County as well as Renfrew County, North Bay and Mattawa.

"The purpose was to find out what the feeling was of the municipalities affected by this," said Staples. "The concern that I would have as a citizen of eastern Ontario is what will that do to economic activity in the communities that rely on rail service."

OVR entered into a long-term lease with CP in 1996 to operate on the line with OVR coming under the control of RailAmerica following its takeover of RaiLink in July 1999. On Dec. 18, OVR announced that it would be ending the lease.

Once CP received notice from RailAmerica that OVR would be shutting down operations on this line, it has 60 days under the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) to determine its next step. Under the Canada Transportation Act, another operator could have offered to purchase the line and continue the rail operations. By the end of February no one had come forward and the line was offered for sale to federal, provincial and municipal governments with the process taking 30 days per level of government.

Representatives at the March 11 meeting agreed that local municipalities can't afford to buy the rail line, Staples said. They agreed to prepare a resolution calling on the federal and provincial governments to support continuing the rail line, which Staples said is "a key transportation asset that currently exists in eastern Ontario that may be lost."

-Chris Must

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'm always saddened when I go to the Science and Tech museum in Ottawa and see the maps of all the rails lines that used to run around here less than a century ago. What I wouldn't give to be able to sit back on a train and putter around on my laptop or read a book, and not have to deal with irritable drivers on the long windy run up River Rd.

[Thorgnor]

People used to be able to take the train right through Algonquin. That's a pretty scenic trip to Sudbury from Ottawa.

I've been commuting weekly to Toronto from London this school year on the VIA and it rules (yeah, it could be so much more efficient but it still works pretty well). Beats the 401 hands down.

I wish we had invested more in rail transit in Canada. For a place that brags about its' size we have the worst connected country in the world (ok maybe we've got it better than Russia ).

[AD]

The size is what makes it impossible to be cost-effective. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but I didn't see your comment leading to that conclusion.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Solar-powered trains! Solar-powered trains! Look at all that roof space!

(Yes, I am naive.)

[SaggyBalls]

Cost effective?

How about just plain effective?

The money's there somewhere.

[Schwa.]

for mass transit to work in this country we must first curtail the urban sprawl.

land of cars, I tells ya!!

[SaggyBalls]

Why does it have to be a 'no that until this' approach?

Both are vital, as without a support in place we will never leave the cars at home cause we would be stranded at our doorsteps.

But you're right about urban sprawl. Ottawa is absolutely ripe with it.

How do we stop urban sprawl when people would prefer to live in a house than an apartment building?

[Schwa.]

How do we stop urban sprawl when people would prefer to live in a house than an apartment building?

$2.00/L gas.

[SaggyBalls]

That'll be part of the equation for sure but that's not the fix.

Urban sprawl doesn't happen just cause gas is cheap.

So what really defines urban sprawl...building out instead of up, or building houses and shops and few other community resources?

How about just building?

I wonder what would happen if there were a morotorium on new housing development for 2 years in Ottawa - if there would really be a housing shortage.

What if we would build out but still have vibrant communities where people didn't commute more than 30 minutes each way?

And once we start developing communities sustainably, what's to become of these house-beside-house eyesore subdivisions?

Edited April 1, 2010 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Urban sprawl doesn't happen just cause gas is cheap.

I think the argument can be made that that's exactly why urban sprawl is possible. Do you know The End of Suburbia ?

[SaggyBalls]

The argument can be made that it is a major cause, but it's not just that, Dr. Mouse.

The end of suburbia addresses Peak oil which - if you have that as a keystone then the world as we know it comes crashing down, not just urban sprawl.

And I am skeptical of Peak Oil being an absolute, especially with other fuel sources and the ability of the ruling classes to look ahead and find new ways to succeed and make money.

We can't quite say that 'Ancient Sunlight' is the only reason city Councillors are in the pockets of developers, and government officials remain ineffective in shaping our future development.

If fuel were more expensive we'd still burn it.

It's going to take a lot of undoing to get people to not only want to demand more for themselves, but to understand what kind of more is reasonable and justified and what kind of more is giving them cancer.

[Thorgnor]

The size is what makes it impossible to be cost-effective.

"Cost-effective" is an arbitrarily calculated fetish of rulership constructed through negligence and self-interest.

What is your ability to travel worth to you?

What about the ability of your children to continue to travel in the future?

"cost-effective" in this case has to be part of an equation where the cost of fuel and maintenance is weighed against the value of sustainable travel, not just luxury. So the question isn't how much the fuel costs or whatever else, it's how much you value a future where travel is still possible by this kind of transit.

It is not "cost-effective" to burn your future when there are alternatives that won't imperil your survival in such obvious and avoidable ways.

This type of sustainable living “involves imagining less comfortable and convenient methods of being in the world, and probably more uncertain and dangerous individual lives†(John May 2008)

peas,

neo-marx-ian

Edited April 1, 2010 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

The real cost strategy should take int account the costs of the vehicles that are currently on the road - not just the fuel costs, congestion, and pollution, but the maintenance and replacement costs of individual vehicles - the total expenditure for the individuals, not just the few corporations or government departments that would foot the initial bill/time for extending rail travel to connect Canada once more.

Anyway, this could get way out of hand really easily and I originally posed a significantly attainable commuting goal for a fast-growing and sprawling city into a rural community that could, with the right boost, be a fantastic rurban centre.

I know that Merrickville is a transition town (village) and it's about 15 minutes past Kemptville. 'North Grenville' has a Community Plan but we're facing a mayor and some rapid development that is undermining its aims so it's pretty interesting to watch this all happen (or fail to) considering that rail would be a huge piece of the pie.

In our recent provincial by-election, the Green Party was number 3 in a Tory Stronghold. As it stands, Leeds-Grenville is a large riding, stretching from Westport to Kempville to Cardinal to Ganonoque (clockwise starting in the west of the riding)

The vast majority of the votes are in the Brockville area, as it's the largest 'city' in the riding. It's the major reason this is a Tory Stronghold, as there is a fair bit of industry in that town.

If this riding can ensure rail travel gets a foothold into our infrastructure - especially so close to the Nation's Capital - it could really be a springboard for other ridings to follow suit as well as help other initiatives that would otherwise be voted on as 'not cost effective'.

Or so I presume.

Baby steps, folks.

I wonder how many other unused or underutilized spurs and lines could connect satellite communities to bigger centres, in turn allowing communities to shift their developmental focus from the auto to rurbanization.

[Thorgnor]

[color:purple]... and we all know how rail has hurt Asia and Europe.

[SaggyBalls]

Does anybody know much about Peterborough's attempts to extend the Go system to the Kawarthas?

I hope it works out for the Electric City, as it would be a real triumph for that Town in Transition.

[Birdy]

Ford & GM folks. Until these guys survive, windows of opportunity for rail service becoming a major player in rurban mobility are nil. Unfortunately.

Instead i'd say efforts would be better directed at making downtown cores of major urban centres more dynamic and liveable - green, urban architecture/city planning. People want houses and lawns because apartments don't offer them access to nature. Bring nature back to the city.

Step one of these baby steps.

[SaggyBalls]

Ford and GM are in the clear but their workers remain in limbo, Birdy.

Instead?

How do you still live in a world of this OR that?

Small towns and cities make up a strong portion of this country's population and certainly a strong part of its economy.

Downtown cores are important, but an intelligent approach to suburbia and urban planning and renewal also need to occur in rural and semi-rural areas as well.

People want houses and lawns for reasons other than the city not offering it. Suburbia doesn't really offer nature either. Just look at what happened to big cities in the last century - Housing projects. Planners that didn't like vibrant urban neighbourhoods tried to eradicate them with super dense faceless buildings and courtyards/small clinical 'parks'

there will always be people that like cities and people that don't and as long as the people that DON'T like cities try to develop them, then cities will never thrive in a truly healthy way.

I certainly agree that efforts are well directed at making downtown cores or major urban centres more dynamic and liveable, but in focusing solely on major urban centres, small towns, villages, and small cities - that have downtown cores - will only see developments on their outskirts. It can easily be argued that the downtown cores of most MAJOR urban centres are mostly ultra-liveable.

Without a realistic and openminded approach to growing small communities, these small communities stand the chance of stagnating further and withering.

I think that bringing nature back to the city is a great idea, but please be open to bringing nature back to the country, introducing it to suburbia, and also bringing it back to nature.

A golf course is certainly unnatural. City parks are rarely at all natural and rarely as nice as golf courses. Green maybe, but certainly man-made and decidedly UNnatural.

While I think you're onto something with our desire to be in lush surroundings, I suggest that people prefer houses with lawns not only because apartments fail to offer them access to nature, but that the design of the apartment or loft is wholly unattractive to most people - especially those with kids. Usually one level, sardinecan-packed on top and beside their neighbours like they're on the shelf at the supermarket. No big open spaces, no dynamic design, no multi-use living, no garden space. Ugly buildings that are built as cheaply as possible for the project (for the most part).

It's truly unfortunate that corners are cut so often in major developments instead of real attention being paid to quality and design.

When an individual can have a 'custom home' built on a plot of land - be it in the country, on a reclaimed town lot, or in a subdivision, the feeling of individuality is certainly there and that - to an extent - drives an industry.

When you're busy saying 'instead of focusing our efforts on (insert faraway issue here)', the issues in your area remain ignored and unanswered.

Keep in mind also that 'downtown urban cores of major urban centres' are few and far between.

Here's an exercise for you:

add up the number of people that live in London, Guelph, K-W, Barrie, Brampton, Burlington, Oshawa, Ajax, Markham, Acton, Woodstock, Hamilton, Stratford, Goderich, Aurora, Newmarket, Clarington, Orangeville, Brampton, Cornwall, Brockville, Kingston, Collingwood, Owen Sound, Petawawa, Pembroke, North Bay, Sudbury, Bline River, Sault Ste. Marie, and Thunder Bay...

...and all the little towns around them...and all the truly rural inhabitants around THEM and compare that to the number of people that are affected by the planning and redevelopment of the downtown cores of Major Urban Centres.

Which is greater, and which has a greater impact on the greater good of our overall society, and which has a greater tax base and voting base?

How are cities more important than rural areas again?

Where is food grown? (yes I know...mostly across the globe in some faraway land)

Urban where it matters, with Rural aspirations and processes where it serves to nourish us.

Rurban Living.

I'm not trying to say that urban centres don't matter, but so few places termed 'urban centre' are actually urban and are more specifically Suburban.

My original post was regarding communities that are even past that and are sadly becoming suburban when it is entirely unnecessary for them to do so, mostly because of a lack of planning and foresight.

It's so easy to get caught up in the 'it's never going to happen' that 'we want this and we need to work around such and such (insert problem here)' gets replaced with 'focusing on cities is a better idea and we should do that instead'

So for all the little towns, hamlets, villages, and housing developments - a shift to Rurban living may just be the renaissance that we thought was only possible with a shift to being ultra dense and 'Urban'

Although it would be great to have an easy convenient solution in a box, our problems are far too complex for that. The Urban solution is not appliccable to 90% of our people. We could come much closer to success in the next decade with a fusion of rural living and urban lifestyle.

Getting into actual solutions for housing, business and industry would be a great discussion indeed.

(Perth ON)

Mass transit and public transit are certainly great solutions that are absolutely necessary to circumventing congestion and saving our public works for truly important projects instead of focusing on the money-pit of our roadways.

Commercial and independant CoHousing, new approaches to dense design, community gardens, community/city owned agribiz, as well as neighbourhood-based Business development incentives to spread business and industry around a community, for example, could be a great asset to any growing rural or urban (or rurban) centre.

[Birdy]

That's an overwhelming amount of stuff to respond to YT.

The auto industry isn't anywhere near the clear. Those billions of dollars ensure that all levels of government will be somewhat hesitant when it comes to injecting any kind of capital into projects that threaten their investment.

I don't disagree with what you're saying above - totally agree actually - but my response was in relation to curbing urban sprawl. I'm all for the growth and development of smaller centres. Exactly why I spend many a Monday night sitting through council sessions here in Chatham.

But just trying to be realistic about what you can do now. Baby steps. It's not compromise, it's realism.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

And I don't entirely disagree with what you've said either - but with the internet between us focused argument is sometimes the only path ideas take.

Compromise is really important and in fact necessary - but it's not one of 2 options, it's part of the process in every option.

Smaller urban centres and their satellite communities (and close proximity standalone communities) will certainly be amazing to see developed as such rather than just being municipalities in the shadow of, or part of the megalopolis (no longer metropolis) of the GTA

I feel kinda like the crazy guy foretelling the end of days on a street corner when I talk about this stuff, but as long as we gut a truly hollistic approach to envigorating society with this-or-that approaches in the name of compromise we step closer and closer to me being right about it...and I really want to be proved wrong when i say that urban planning is going downhill with no hope in sight.

Prove me wrong in time or with examples of Rurban/Urban/Rural/Suburban communities that are thriving in a healthy way, I don't care which (but it's always great to read stories about who's making a difference).

The auto industry is a whole 'nother story. With all the cars on the road (and easily fixed to be roadworthy) I find it hard to believe that the auto industry will ever be as it once was, but ford and GM are making decent cars and set to turn a profit. Are all of the out of work factory staff back on the lines? nope.

When we start demanding other options for travel from our officials then they will start taking those modes seriously - cause their jobs will depend on it.

Baby steps are one thing, but having an end goal in mind is imperative, because without it we never really get anywhere...we're just aimlessly walking.