The infatuation with speeds comparable to cars makes no sense here. Metros and our LRT system aren't designed for that, especially with our winter climate. It doesn't make sense as a goal or caveat for Stage 3 either, our LRT isn't all of a sudden going to speed up miraculously after Moodie and Algonquin. And BRT isn't going to speed up anything nor is it a more "effective" solution.
The benefits are TOD long-term, reduction of sprawl overall, reliability with consistency, and accessibility. Accessibility meaning you can get to most major places within our metro without having to spend money on a taxi or uber. It also allows better local transit bus services in conjunction to the LRT stations. Effectively, our bus network can efficiently build off those nodes instead of the random mess they are in now.
Those are goals that we should have. That is the value. That is what will drive up ridership, not looking at this as being only a commuter line. It's also much easier to plan bus routes siphoning off the final stage 3 destinations, which then allows the community to grow around secondary-type cores. I don't think we need to have event centres be the reason to build out the network. The whole mess we are in now is because our city didn't adopt a metro or LRT and now we are playing catch-up, so this rhetoric of it's a waste to get the network to be more future-proofed doesn't make sense. We save money in the long-term by getting the commitment now, than spending even more down the road when we realize we do need it. It's the same argument against double tracking the Trillium line, we cheaped out on it and now there's worry about fixing those capacity issues in the future (be it expanding Trillium or a new Bank St tunnel or whatever). All those costs are much more than if we decided to just double track it from before.
A good example of a beneficial add that Stage 3 in terms of accessibility is someone who lives in Riverside South who wants to go to Algonquin College. They would usually take a car because the bus routes currently are atrocious. Instead, they'd hop into LRT from Marketplace and then go directly to Algonquin from there. Or someone who lives near St. Laurent who wants to go to the outlets at Tanger now doesn't need to worry about how much it would cost if they didn't have a car. Yeah sure, it would "take longer", but that person now has a reliable way to get there without having to rent a car, ask someone to take them, or buy a car to rely on. And yes, these are specific scenarios - but there are thousands of them that show why a built out network is better than half-assing it, ignoring the two major areas in our city, and then calling it a day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe
Like it or not, but the suburbs are part of the city.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe
Just because your neighbourhood does not get something, does not mean another cannot either.
|
A very good point. I fail to see how this is the suburbs getting all the things. Taking this away literally means these areas get nothing. And taking this away doesn't miraculously mean we're getting any better core projects - because we more than likely won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe
And in 30 years, lose all that benefit for 5 years while it is converted. Instead, bite the bullet and build something that does not need to be upgraded in the future. I get the draw of BRT, but if you look long term, it is less appealing. It also doesn't cause TOD, of which is desperately needed.
|
My point exactly. We also lose 30 years worth of TOD and slowdown of sprawl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
If this was true, we wouldn't be building a system with 1.4 km station spacing. This entire tangent of discussion started because we were discussing specifically how the system isn't "competitive" enough with driving for suburbanites. So if the improvements are meant for them, somebody should let them know. They don't see it.
Amazing how people forget all the effects of the bus congestion in the core, or what expresses buses skipping stops did to service inside the Greenbelt. I have lived along the Transitway and now along the Confederation Line. The O-Train is a notable improvement in frequency and service consistency over buses on the Transitway.
Also, how do you go from saying it's just a conversion to them listing all the improvements and additions here:
The biggest improvements are capacity and consistency. You know there's always a train on the Confederation Line every 3-6 mins (8-12 mins on the Trillium Line). You know the train won't skip your stop if the driver doesn't see you wave. You know the stops are only 1-2 km apart, so anywhere along the line is a maximum 15 min walk. And you know, your train won't be caught in 20 mins of traffic in the core, at peak.
|
To add to this, it's not all suburbanites - there are many who are angry at this whole notion of removing LRT. There is a lot of support for it, and I saw locally in my area that there is more than enough support and angst against those councilors who aren't for it. And the point of capacity and consistency is the big point here. I remember that hell swarm of busses downtown, it made that congestion impossible to deal with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau
Is it still city-building if all you're building is in the suburbs and not in the city?
|
Yes it is (and we know we aren't just building in the suburbs, but if you build to create more urban environments in the suburbs, then yes it is city building). Because the whole point of wanting something like Stage 3 to happen is that we start solidifying the core more and reduce sprawl. Our city's density was hurt by not adopting density with LRT or metro earlier, so the sprawl went out of control. If you notice, all those "not Ottawa" projects outside the greenbelt are creating more city life, and more urban lifestyle beside the stations. The plans and zoning already show how much improvement just the prospect of adding the final parts of our network adds.
Prev
Linear Mode
