Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus
Clearly a snipe at me. You continue to strawman my single argument (and one post in this message board) as if am an LRT advocate with no flexibility. Where did you come from? I simply indicated that both RRT and LRT have their pros and cons, and I am an adamant supporter of no LRT in Surrey unless it is curb and grade separated while achieving the aspirations for livable communities and increased density along the proposed corridors. Clearly though you're looking for argumentation when none exists.
|
You know what, screw it, let's start naming names. No, I didn't even remember your post at the time, I was talking about members like Shift and Southward. Click back beyond the past two months (since you don't seem to have done so) and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Ain't my fault if you thought it was targeted at you and took it personally, that's you being overly sensitive.
Thanks for trying to help Rico, but Condon's a whole 'nother bag of worms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus
Clearly Surrey is using LRT to influence its zoning regulations for density along the corridor and I don't have an issue with that. If RRT like skytrain only zones density at the stations only, and is not a influential aspect in city zoning between stations (which has been the case along the Lougheed Hwy corridor and pretty much along many corridors), then that is something to consider and the City of Surrey has a point. No? Instead of declaring your own self worth on a message board trying to win favor from other people you don't know, maybe look beyond a pedestrian understanding of transportation and land use and do research....?
|
One more time: Lougheed Highway is a highway, so developers ignore it - save for the SkyTrain hubs - for that reason, and that reason alone. Cambie and No. 3 are arterials, and so they're getting various amounts of density all along the Canada Line, even in places that'll never get a station.
Surrey Council's entitled to think whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true. Municipal governments are directly in charge of rezoning with no checks or balances in the way, so the only thing stopping Hepner and Friends (TM) from getting density in-between stations is themselves. All they need for walkable neighbourhoods is to improve bus service and rezone the whole street for low/midrises. Works just fine for Broadway, after all.
Really, I couldn't care less whether I'm liked or disliked; I've disagreed with practically everybody on the forum at one point or another (admittedly, with varying degrees of tact), and will probably continue to do so, just like you're disagreeing with me right now. No need to accuse people of grandstanding and ignorance - if you really want to, please do so after
some additional perspective.
Quote:
Of course, that doesn’t matter to Condon, because to him, speed isn’t the point. He points specifically to the redevelopment outcomes of the Portland Streetcar, just as many Portland commenters on my first streetcar post did. If turning buses into streetcars causes all those streets to redevelop, with dramatically higher and yet walkable density, wouldn’t that be a good thing? That wouldn’t improve mobility, but it would improve access. We wouldn’t have to go as far to do things, because everything would be closer.
Yes, but Condon needs you to believe that (a) such redevelopment won’t happen anyway and (b) no such redevelopment will happen if we just keep improving the already-intensive bus system while adding one or two rapid transit lines. The reason streetcars currently trigger investment is that the rails in the street symbolize mobility. The development happens not just because of what will be in walking distance, but because the rails in the street suggest you’ll be able to get to lots of places easily by rail. So rails in the street create redevelopment, which improves access. But they do that by offering an appearance of mobility. That may not be the same as actual mobility; in fact, it might be the opposite.
|