Bringing the population to 1 million

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not a chance.

The rest of your comment is just a repetition of the same tired planning dogma that got us here in the first place. It is a fundamental difference in beliefs. Where we are here is similar to where we would have been 120 years ago if someone had proposed building 6-track rail lines to connect cities in the absence of any actual demand.

Define demand? Most things are built with the idea that there will be a demand. One thing that makes a livable city is active transportation. That is things like sidewalks, bike paths and bike lanes. Maybe instead of bike lanes we simply make the law that a bike gets the entire lane. The reason for bike lanes on major streets are to prevent cyclists getting hit. So, the only other option is to have that lane blocked by a cyclist. I am certain you'd agree loosing some space to a bike lane is better.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not quite that simple. The Halifax streetcar system was owned and operated by the local power utility at the time, NSL&P. It was originally developed using streetcars that were purchased used from other cities. They were crude, cold, rickety, drafty things. When WWII happened the population of Halifax skyrocketed and the streetcars, already problematic, took a real beating. They were literally falling apart and being so old already they were virtually unrepairable. It wasn't a matter of metal being unavailable.

So, being a power utility, NSL&P decided to replace them not with buses, but with electric trolleys. Brand-new ones built in Ontario. New power lines were strung, and their use of existing streets meant routes could be expanded at far less cost than streetcars. These had heat, were much quieter and more comfortable, could pull into the curb to pick up and disembark passengers, and were seen as superior in every way.

It wasn't until the 1960s as the suburbs began to expand and the city was no longer concentrated in and around downtown that the first diesel buses were introduced. The creation of Halifax Shopping Centre and Bayers Road Centre helped create that demand. It was just cheaper to transition to diesel than string lines everywhere, plus the trolleys themselves were wearing out and needed replacement. Just imagine today, having to string trolley power lines everywhere buses run.

You gave the more expanded version of what happened.

Imagine for a minute of cancelling a bus route when the bus is worn out and needs replacement. If you think that sounds stupid, then you and I agree. So, replace the rolling stock and then replacing worn tracks and such would just be a normal thing to do.

Let's say the Streetcar was still there. I could see them being extended to carry the demand on the more major routes. Instead, let's do things as cheap as possible.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You seem to be overlooking the reality that families left downtowns in droves for what they perceived as better housing in the new suburbs, which allowed them a bit of land and green space. Sidewalks in such areas can and do exist in many cases, but get very little use aside from people walking their dogs or running to exercise. They are not useful for actually going about ones business because of the much greater distances involved and the way those areas were developed due to the demand for that type of housing.



Diesels are soon to meet their end there because of emissions regulations imposed by the EU. You also seem to be unaware of the very fast, very thirsty European sports and exotic cars that are very much admired and in great demand.

I understand there was no singular reason for the exodus.
Part of the issue in those subdivisions are that you might only be 100m from the grocery store, but the road network makes it closer to 1km. Some subdivisions are better than others. So, why not walk? Because it has been made to be unwalkable.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Oh dear, now you have gone off a cliff. To equate those two examples is simply out to lunch, and I'll leave it at that.

I'd rather you didn't. I do not understand what cliff I have gone off of.

Originally Posted by Haliguy

That's what's so terrible and unhealthily about the suburbs, where you have to drive with everything you do.

And that is what should change if real growth is to happen.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And you also have a little spot of land you can call your own, and a place where you can plant a garden, and where your children can play in safety. The suburbs are not a den of iniquity!

Suburbs however should be thoughtfully planned, complete with a street grid (but respecting streams and other natural features), stressing bicycle trails, walking paths, and well placed playgrounds and parks. Suburbs should not be monolithic and should include neighbourhood retail clusters (corner stores, pharmacies, pubs, bookshops and services like hairdressers and doctor's offices - not never-ending strip malls on collector roads) as well as neighbourhood recreational facilities. A suburb should be preplanned with (future) transit in mind up to and including undeveloped corridors for BRT or commuter rail down the road. In the meantime, these corridors could be used for recreation (making it crystal clear to residents that this is only temporary).

My own neighbourhood in Moncton isn't perfect. It is too monolithic, and I have to drive everywhere to do any errands. The street grid is not perfect and bus routes are too circuitous. On the other hand, the schools are well placed in my neighbourhood, there is a new neighbourhood YMCA I can walk to, the potential of a new satellite municipal library next to the YMCA, and a network of walking and bicycling trails that are completely separate from the road network. The city has respected existing brooks and streams, and they remain in their virgin state. There is also an abundance of neighbourhood playgrounds. I would give the Kingswood/Evergreen area a score of "B-" in terms of neighbourhood planning.

Originally Posted by OliverD

You don't need to live in a suburb to have those amenities, although it's generally cheaper.

In general many people want the private realm that is provided by suburban living but they do not want to pay the actual costs. If property taxes were more in line with what it actually costs to service suburban sprawl, suburbs as we know them would not exist.

Both of you speak the same coin, but the opposite side. It is interesting that some of the nicest properties are usually in old parts of towns/cities. They have large trees, mature hedges, and beautiful gardens that have been tended to over the decades. A new subdivision usually sees most if not all trees and vegetation removed. Then they plant small trees. Maybe they need to be required to leave more trees.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That is more due to inequities built into the existing property tax system that is based upon assessed value. If the taxation formula consisted of a mix of things that actually drive municipal govt cost - things like road frontage, number of bedrooms, number of minor children, etc instead of the totally artificial facsimile of using assessed value as a gauge of ability to pay and using the property tax system as some sort of "progressive" wealth tax instead of a way to recover actual service costs, property values would be adjusted to include that and the argument goes away.

I only rented in Halifax. Are you saying that is not done? As a current home owner elsewhere, I know that is not the case here.