09-27-2016, 12:22 AM
(09-26-2016, 03:23 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: dan, "It *is* more convenient because we've *made* it so. But investing in roads, and *not* transit for the past 70 years."
No, its inherently more convenient in many use cases. Especially in a country like Canada. It's also significantly more efficient (including when looking at environmental cost) in a lot of situations. A small vehicle that you can take almost anywhere you want to go will always be more efficient for certain use cases than mass transit that requires a large fixed infrastructure.
And I'm not saying there shouldn't be a public transit option between KW and Guelph. Regular buses and improved GO service would be pretty good starts and meet a large portion of the need for transit.
As for not needing the new highway 7 - that doesn't match with what I see.
Edit: It's been awhile since I've looked at numbers. I'm certainly open to seeing them and hearing the argument for why we don't need the new highway.
Yes, it's more convenient for some use cases, but almost universally, not the use cases where we've actually invested in building huge roads. Small rural areas are easier to access by car, because they're sparsely populated and visited, but in those areas, we haven't invested in building enormous subdivisions or massive freeways. By definition.
Area's where we have invested, should have also had transit investment, but they haven't. But there's no reason to continue making that mistake over and over again. And yet, in some places, we continue to do so.
I'm not sure if the Guelph highway is one of them, but I sure would have liked to see a reasonable transit option tried first.