Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular
Again, your argument in general terms sounds nice, but long ago the city decided to green light Quarry Park and the SE Health campus contingent on there being an lrt line eventually. So no, they are not acquiescing to these communities demands, they are fulfilling the framework required for these mega projects to properly function. In addition whether you want to see it or not the SE employs more people than DT does. As for transit stats, they are always based on the brt running to the CBD. I haven't seen stats for the amount of transit users going into the employment areas of the office and industrial parks from other parts of the city. I see many people waiting for the bus every day by my office. This incidentally will be within very close proximity to the green line.
|
I'm not sure why you keep trying to make the argument for this infrastructure on the above basis. Again, surely you can look at a satellite map of the City and understand why claiming that the SE has as much or more employment than downtown is of little value. Centrality and land use intensity can do wonders for the economics of transit. I mean no disrespect, but it is quite evident that you are arguing this based on emotion and vested interest, not what is or would be good for transit. Running a trainset through some 10 km of not much wouldn't garner very much ridership, even if a couple stations further south might - itself somewhat dubious.
I'm also not against this line, but it really isn't ideal and despite what I'm sure are some perhaps pie-in-the-sky, lovely, future brownfield and TOD plans, it's doubtful those will materialize at a level quick enough for this portion of the future Greenline to not have a comparatively poor cost recovery ratio.
Transit generally works on economies of density not size.
Threaded Mode