Quote:
Originally Posted by mcc16
What a crazy over reaction and over simplification. If you took a second to take your loving gaze off of noodle to consider some other points, maybe you'd see the bigger picture.
I completely agree with you that the utility corridor is an acceptable use of space, and have used it a few times on some of my longer bike rides... But I don't understand how you are so against the idea that our suburbs could be improved. A field of houses with looping roads just isn't practical... A neighbourhood with bike paths (even if it's a utility corridor), transit access, and that is pedestrian friendly, is better. Simple. And designing a neighbourhood so that it is pedestrian friendly so that that "Quiznos" is easily accessible...then even better. Any trip that can be made by foot instead of a car is a win for the planet. My favourite thing is the fat old men you see in spandex on their two thousand dollar bike...they'll happily go for a bike ride for fitness, yet they will probably wait for fifteen minutes in the timmys drive through line up so that they done have to get up off their fat —. And the best part is that the timmys is a Km away from their house but it takes them ten minutes to drive there because of poorly planned roads.
But seriously though, congrats to you and noodle on your budding romance. 
Disclaimer: last sentence meant as humour. Apologize in advance if over sensitivity leads to exaggerated rebuttals and personal attacks. |
Thank you for this rational post. I stopped replying to the others when it became obvious that this conversation was going to just be an echo chamber of hyperbole. The act of critiquing the extent to which somebody who already admitted they were wrong on an internet forum is in fact wrong is the epitome of petty.
The whole utility corridor thing blew past me in my previous example. I never said they weren't an important piece of our overall infrastructure and had I realized that's what the site in question was, I wouldn't have used it as an example. I'm not sure what the likes of feepa and noodlenoodle want? To beg for forgiveness?
Move on already. The image I used that included of a TUC was simply because it was the example I could find of a multiuse trail and was in direct relation to the warped idea that somehow turning a multiuse trail into a community high street with a variety of amenities for its denizens (including what a multiuse trail is already used for) would somehow detract from the pedestrian experience more than looping roads with walls of front car garages.
Of course, we could also just do this with arterial roads instead, but I was looking specifically at Silver Berry's current build out and how something could be added to enhance the community with minimal demolition, which, if that multiuse trail did not have the TUC on it, would be a very minimal solution. Also, due to width, I don't really consider arterial roads the easiest places to implement complete streets.
Looking further, these types of complete streets could be built into new neighbourhoods, which is more what I'm getting at. As you say, these are ways we can improve upon the status quo. I'll admit that the walking paths in new communities are great and something other cities lack, but if all there is to walk to is greenspace and more homes, it creates a limited scope for that community. Contrary to what feepa would have you believe, I am fine with homes and greespace. I'm just looking at other things that these communities could have to give them more breadth and completeness. And even those homes that are nearer the edge of say, Silver Berry, closer to the shopping centre, I'm sure most will still drive because once you get off the walking trail and in the shopping centre, there is zero consideration for any mode beyond the car.
Prev
Linear Mode
