Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
Where did I compare it to Tokyo? Where? Tell me.
I compared it to places like Seattle, Las Vegas, Oakville, Mississauga, Winnipeg, and Quebec City - sprawling, car-oriented North American cities with little or no rail transit, and you guys act like I am comparing it to fucking Tokyo.
I don't get why the idea of building transit culture causes so much controversy here. Transit is the number one competitor to the automobile, no need for things to be in walking distance. I see it every day here: a non-walkable environment actually increases transit ridership. Places like Mississauga and Brampton would not have such high transit ridership if people could walk and bike everywhere. The buses are full because these places are unwalkable.
Places like Little Rock are not walkable, and that's exactly why they should be looking to transit. And smaller metropolitan areas like this all over the USA don't even need to invest in rail or rapid transit. The distances are just long enough to prevent walking and cycling, but not long enough to interfere with efficient and useful transit. Immense unfulfilled potential to build a transit culture and without high cost. In terms of distances, it's cars, then transit, then bikes, then walking. Transit is the step toward walkability. They have to take that first step.
|
Is it only that? Could it also be that Mississauga has wider streets that are more intimidating to pedestrians? Or that parking is more expensive or harder to find? Or that buses also connect to transit into Toronto, the biggest city in Canada? Or that Mississauga has more transit connections to places in different counties(/equivalents), like Oakville, Hamilton, and Oshawa? Or that land value in Downtown Mississauga is higher than land value in Downtown Little Rock, and parking lots get developed? Or that Mississauga has a bigger footprint? Or that cars are cheaper to own in Arkansas than in Ontario?