Quote:
Well, I think I'll have to disagree with you on this point. I think that if there is a case for running buses to the suburbs, then the same case could be forwarded for LRT.
I understand the idea that if the suburbs have good, quick transportation to downtown then more people will think of living out there. However, there is already a sizable population in the suburbs and it isn't going away just because there is not LRT service. The plan is to build more and better bus rapid transit to all parts of the suburbs, and provide a 'one-seat' service to the LRT transfer point within the Greenbelt. How will that act as a disincentive to live in the suburbs?
We need to realize that we are not doing anything that will make people leave the suburbs and move back inside the Greenbelt delimiter. And we need to see that running hundreds of 'express to LRT' buses across the Greenbelt is just plain bad for the environment and the wallet.
The argument that there isn't the density in the suburbs is a false one. There isn't the density at Baseline, Lincoln Fields, or Blair stations either. We will be making the density by using buses to shuttle all of those folks to transfer points. In the current argument, those points are inside the Greenbelt. I suggest that that those points could be within the suburbs. If all of the commuters in Kanata were collected at Eagleson, that point would have enough density of riders to justify rail.
Yes, it would cost more to run rail across the Greenbelt, but what is the environment worth?
I do agree that LRT should be used to improve transit within the Greenbelt. Unfortunately, the proposed plan is to convert the existing commuter system - which is geared to moving people from the suburbs to downtown - to light rail. Only the secondary transit routes will improve transit within the Greenbelt.
|
I have to agree with everything said here. Regarding density, I think you will find that most post-war suburbs inside the Greenbelt, have a lower density than what has been built in recent years outside the Greenbelt. I also think that locating our rail transfer stations at a central point in the suburbs outside the Greenbelt also makes more than environment sense. Just consider that most of our transit ridership growth is going to come from our growing suburbs outside the Greenbelt. Those people are going to have to be moved somehow, and the current proposal means more and more buses and more and more use of diesel. This means costs per passenger will continue to escalate, if we believe that current decline in oil prices are only temporary. Rail needs to get out to growth areas in order to be effective.
This continued argument about commuter rail for the suburbs is not reasonable. It cannot possibly replace current Transitway service, considering the location of existing rail lines and the lack of a downtown rail station. Commuter Rail is only going to make sense for those travelling longer distances, beyond urban transit area.
We also have to not get too carried away with intensification inside the Greenbelt. This is part of what is driving up property taxes in those areas most affected by intensification. There are real limits as to how much intensification can occur without disrupting real estate markets and forcing too many people out of their homes.
Threaded Mode