12-11-2024, 06:31 PM
On the edge of the city. How much public transit goes out that far? I guess one bus regularly going to conestoga mall will suffice?
Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 43, 50 fl | U/C
|
12-11-2024, 06:31 PM
On the edge of the city. How much public transit goes out that far? I guess one bus regularly going to conestoga mall will suffice?
12-11-2024, 11:19 PM
12-12-2024, 10:20 AM
(12-11-2024, 11:19 PM)panamaniac Wrote:(12-11-2024, 06:31 PM)Momo26 Wrote: On the edge of the city. How much public transit goes out that far? I guess one bus regularly going to conestoga mall will suffice? RM Transit argues it should be the other way around: The Key to Building Transit Oriented Development
12-12-2024, 07:05 PM
He has entertaining videos but he's just a YouTuber at the end of the day. It would be pretty hard to sell taxpayers on the idea of a bus route or LRT line to nowhere.
12-12-2024, 11:47 PM
(12-12-2024, 07:05 PM)ac3r Wrote: He has entertaining videos but he's just a YouTuber at the end of the day. It would be pretty hard to sell taxpayers on the idea of a bus route or LRT line to nowhere. And yet we build roads to nowhere all the time. If we built transit to “nowhere” maybe we wouldn’t be so car dependent.
12-12-2024, 11:59 PM
(12-12-2024, 11:47 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(12-12-2024, 07:05 PM)ac3r Wrote: He has entertaining videos but he's just a YouTuber at the end of the day. It would be pretty hard to sell taxpayers on the idea of a bus route or LRT line to nowhere. Yeah but 4 lane roads that carry enough traffic for a one way street are serious infrastructure investments, while transit is just a frivolous handout for the poor!
local cambridge weirdo
12-15-2024, 07:30 PM
(12-12-2024, 11:47 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(12-12-2024, 07:05 PM)ac3r Wrote: He has entertaining videos but he's just a YouTuber at the end of the day. It would be pretty hard to sell taxpayers on the idea of a bus route or LRT line to nowhere. I suppose you can argue that, but you still need the roads BEFORE you build the transit. That said, people running transit companies like GRT, for example, cancel routes all the time if they are not utilized enough. In our area (Forest Hill) we lost transit due to low usage - though initially cut back to fund the Ion, between those cut back, cutting down on head time, hours, days, and then years of construction, absolutely no one uses that bus anymore, so it's going to be gone for good. (not sure of route number, now, but it was Route 2 at one point).
12-15-2024, 11:43 PM
(12-15-2024, 07:30 PM)jeffster Wrote:(12-12-2024, 11:47 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: And yet we build roads to nowhere all the time. If we built transit to “nowhere” maybe we wouldn’t be so car dependent. Why? Unless you mean to allow the construction vehicles to get to the site? Best way to build a new suburb would be to build excellent transit, pedestrian/cycling infrastructure, and roads all at once, and design the whole thing to be easy to access by transit and pedestrian/cycling methods. Also use appropriate zoning and all the other measures we talk about.
12-16-2024, 12:42 PM
That might work in some kind of authoritarian country where top down planners can design everything, but the process is much more organic here. We can predict where we might need transit, but it makes no sense to build it before we know how many would use it.
12-16-2024, 03:24 PM
(12-16-2024, 12:42 PM)ac3r Wrote: That might work in some kind of authoritarian country where top down planners can design everything, but the process is much more organic here. We can predict where we might need transit, but it makes no sense to build it before we know how many would use it. It seems that this isn’t necessarily the case even in Ontario. Even with the ION, just the plans to build quality transit brought in high density development. Can we not use transit as the tool to get the development we want? Once the neighbourhood is built in a car centric manner, it’s much harder and more expensive to change it.
12-16-2024, 04:41 PM
(12-16-2024, 12:42 PM)ac3r Wrote: That might work in some kind of authoritarian country where top down planners can design everything, but the process is much more organic here. We can predict where we might need transit, but it makes no sense to build it before we know how many would use it. What are you talking about? All the major roads are planned and built by municipal governments, and the zoning that applies to the properties near them are controlled by the same governments. I wouldn’t use the word “authoritarian” because it connotes an extremely repressive government, way beyond anything that zoning implies, but we actually do live in a country where planners have an enormous amount of control over what gets built. For the municipality to plan for good transit access as well as good road access is perfectly reasonable and well within the scope of what zoning and planning already do.
Any urban layout pre-1950 is apparently a lost art that we can never get back, despite those neighbourhoods obviously still existing and being clearly the most desirable neighbourhoods re: prices...
Slow, iterative growth over time is the answer to the transit issue and how we used to build cities for all of history before the war. Now we build giant chunks at a time via large subdivision plans and freeze them forever via zoning. This miserable historical myopia is almost omnipresent in the fields of architecture and urban planning and it would be in our best interest to make it unfashionable as quickly as possible.
local cambridge weirdo
12-17-2024, 02:03 PM
(12-15-2024, 07:30 PM)jeffster Wrote:(12-12-2024, 11:47 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: And yet we build roads to nowhere all the time. If we built transit to “nowhere” maybe we wouldn’t be so car dependent. Well, there is the #12 along Westmount and the #1 along Queen St./Blvd. There is the #35 along Greenbrook which is planned to be discontinued, which is unfortunate because it is the only way to get to the medical offices and other businesses at the Forest Hill Centre.
12-17-2024, 03:57 PM
(12-17-2024, 02:03 PM)Acitta Wrote:(12-15-2024, 07:30 PM)jeffster Wrote: I suppose you can argue that, but you still need the roads BEFORE you build the transit. At the council meeting about a week ago all of the service cuts were rejected by council, I don't know if its set in stone yet because I didn't watch the entire meeting but council rejected them all with a decent margin. Route 9 Lakeshore, Route 30 Ring Road, Route 55 Grand Bridge frequency cuts were removed. Route 26 massive service cuts (50% of trips) was removed. Route 35 cancelation was reversed (GRT hates the Greenbrook neighbourhood because this is the second time they've tried this). Garbage can removals at bus stops, also reversed. TRITAG was very influential on that decision, same thing with a the UW NDP club.
12-17-2024, 05:28 PM
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|