Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardTH
Everyone says this but there's really not much residential along Pembina. From Jubilee to McGillivray is entirely parking and low-rise retail, there's one single, small 3-storey apartment building on that stretch. Mcgillivray to Crescent/Chevrier there's a whole 6 more residential buildings, all 3-4 storeys max. The only residential density on Pembina is clustered between Chevrier and Plaza drive, where the dogleg comes back within a few hundred metres of Pembina anyway. The dogleg route really doesn't miss much, maybe 200 apartment units. One single TOD tower could make up for that
|
So only people in apartment buildings take transit? Pembina has a very healthy transit ridership, so your logic is going off-track somewhere. It may be very low-rise but it's a complete neighbourhood with residential areas on both sides and plenty of shops, services, and employment all along. Far more conducive to transit use than a hydro corridor bordering an industrial park. I don't think the dogleg is the end of the world, but to say that one TOD tower would bring the ridership up to the same level as Pembina is really a stretch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnipegger
It's also all about cost-benefit ratios.
...
As a result, the cheapest "rapid" transit options are selected, which meant the dogleg route. To expropriate properties along or near Pembina so that transit could be closer to that corridor would have only increased ridership marginally in the short run and would have been significantly more expensive.
|
Huh?? The Pembina option was to run in the Letellier rail corridor, which has space to accommodate a busway (and is being used for the busway south of Plaza Drive anyway). No expropriation needed and no greater expense. That wasn't the justification at all. The only real justification for the dogleg offered in the routing report was the TOD opportunities.
I agree that the dogleg is not really a huge deal in the long run, but let's not overstate the case for it.