Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
Calgary has always favoured coverage over quality of service improvements - which arguably has helped the system's success. My prediction is it seems likely the trend will continue, with the SE line being built first. It also helps that the SELRT has been well planned for, and there is an easy route for it to take (except for the downtown tunnel).
In some ways, IMO, the priorities are wrong, as all these extensions to far out suburbs reward people for moving to places which aren't good for the city. Meanwhile, the trains are packed by the time they get halfway into the city so users who live in the good places are punished. In regards to the SELRT, everyone knows the deep SE has crappy roads and transit, but people want a cheap big house so they move there and then bitch about how bad their commute on Deerfoot is.
I do support the SELRT, as clearly the SE is the worst connected, but I also want the NCLRT to be built to a high standard (i.e. underground), so the existing transit users there are given improvements also. I also want to see more service improvements, so everyone benefits (8th Ave, some grade separation, speed increases).
I also don't see why we can't build this soon. Calgary and Alberta is a very wealthy place (as everyone is so tired of hearing!). What's the point of all our damaging industry if we're not going to reap the benefits with value-adding infrastructure? We can afford it, even if it means some guys might have to delay lifting their F350 or buy a 2500sqft house instead of a 3000sqft one.
|
I'm not sure I would use the word "favored" with respect to coverage vs quality; I think 'forced' might be more appropriate. Calgary's original transit plans were for a grade-separated metro, which was killed by rising labor costs. Ditto on the original 8th ave subway. The fact is that, like everyone else, CT has to deal with the hand its given.
Part of that goes into serving far-flug communities. On one hand you might rightfully say it promotes urban sprawl. But on the other hand, converting suburbanites from car users to transit users has a much larger value in terms of pollution and carbon reduction, in terms of congestion reduction than an otherwise equivalent urban commuter.