04-09-2018, 11:16 PM
Transit is a balancing act, there's some reason why Conservation Dr. is better because it's straight and would probably be faster. But putting the bus on the street with people makes for a shorter walk (and not the 2-3 minutes claimed but by 6-10 minutes) which is probably more important for this route given that the majority using it will probably be captive users, who don't have the ability to drive, few people will be choosing to ride this bus.
Of course, the reality is the bus route already travels down Conservation Dr. As I kind of expected, the route is a loop, since Conservation Dr. is a straight route, and there's nowhere to turn around:
http://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/2018-tran...twork.aspx
So it pretty much *has* to run on Pinery. The bus also already runs down Lake Louise Blvd which is a very similar residential street. It's also worth noting this bus runs 16 runs a weekday (weekdays only) (and since it's a loop, it's a total of 16 buses).
But I do agree the problem with the responses is more the attitude, as Pheidippides said, it is very divisive. I can certainly sympathize with the preferring a quiet street, but the phrasing is very dismissive to the use of the service. I also think the authors are exaggerating dangers to try and strengthen their arguments, which I hate.
Of course, the reality is the bus route already travels down Conservation Dr. As I kind of expected, the route is a loop, since Conservation Dr. is a straight route, and there's nowhere to turn around:
http://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/2018-tran...twork.aspx
So it pretty much *has* to run on Pinery. The bus also already runs down Lake Louise Blvd which is a very similar residential street. It's also worth noting this bus runs 16 runs a weekday (weekdays only) (and since it's a loop, it's a total of 16 buses).
But I do agree the problem with the responses is more the attitude, as Pheidippides said, it is very divisive. I can certainly sympathize with the preferring a quiet street, but the phrasing is very dismissive to the use of the service. I also think the authors are exaggerating dangers to try and strengthen their arguments, which I hate.