nfitz
Superstar
pH is something like this as well.
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
W. K. Lis
Superstar
I guess if your fan, lamp, water fountain, etc. can't run 24 hours, they could always get a white noise generator to block off any unwanted noise.
doady
Senior Member
Khristopher does have a point though. Why hundred million dollars each year to put empty buses into service, disrupt quiet neighbourhoods, polluting the air and endanger the children? Only around 6 to 7 percent of all trips overall in Mississauga are using Mississauga Transit. In places like Meadowvale it is less than 4 percent. Time to put this white elephant to sleep, permanently.
khris
Senior Member
Whenever I go to the GO station, I take the 19 or I walk 15 mins. I understand the convenience of the shuttles. The purpose of them I think was to convince more people to use public transit, by making it easy to catch the train downtown in the morning, and come back in the evening.
However I think it failed, as the shuttle has nobody on it.
However I think it failed, as the shuttle has nobody on it.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
What we saw in Oakville was that people wanted the flexibility of making stops on the way home to pick up the kids or hit the grocery store, in addition to the abundance of free parking. If we build day care centres and grocery stores in the parking lots, and convince people to buy $10 worth of groceries every few days instead of $100 once every two weeks then we can move towards killing two birds with one stone.
doady
Senior Member
That's crazy. The GO station parking lots are packed solid all day. No retailer in their right mind would locate in one since there would be no parking space for customers.
I think we should just accept the fact commuter and regional rail are not compatible with pedestrians, density, mixed-use, and transit.
ShonTron
Moderator
What?
Regional rail incompatible with pedestrians, transit and density? What about Port Credit, Downtown Brampton, Hamilton? Or how about some of the commuter railroad suburbs surrounding New York or Chicago? I don't even have to go talk about Europe or Asia.
Regional rail incompatible with pedestrians, transit and density? What about Port Credit, Downtown Brampton, Hamilton? Or how about some of the commuter railroad suburbs surrounding New York or Chicago? I don't even have to go talk about Europe or Asia.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
I was going to say that you missed the point, but someone beat me to it.
I'm talking about putting the services close to the station so people don't have to make 8 legged trips to do all their errands.
Even Milton's doing it... Milton.
I'm talking about putting the services close to the station so people don't have to make 8 legged trips to do all their errands.
Even Milton's doing it... Milton.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Milton? You might as well compare us to Paris if you are going to use Milton as an example. Theres no way on earth that we can pull that kind of stuff off here.
taal
Senior Member
I don't really see what your saying working ... most people #1 intention after work is to pick up their kids and go home, less the first past. More so in suburbs < just do to the demographics of the area ... nothing else (although other things might factor in as well).
At the same rate if such facilities are needed somewhere why not locate them where you suggest. I suspect you'll see a lot of trips on weekends though - car trips, so it better have ample parking or it's a no go.
At the same rate if such facilities are needed somewhere why not locate them where you suggest. I suspect you'll see a lot of trips on weekends though - car trips, so it better have ample parking or it's a no go.
doady
Senior Member
Yes why do all those suburbs have worse local transit than Mississauga? Why does the Long Island bus system have only 1/3 the ridership per capita of Mississauga Transit, putting it on a similar level as Oakville Transit? Such a highly developed regional rail system such as in New York area should be a boon to local transit, but it isn't, it actually seems to be a detriment to local transit and therefore hinder smart growth.
Even looking at Mississauga, why does the most urban corridor in Mississauga, Lakeshore Road, have such poor ridership compared to other much less urban corridors? Because 23 Lakeshore connects to three full service GO stations.
Why is least busiest section of both the Hurontario and Dixie buses the sections south of the QEW? Because those sections are closest to the Lakeshore line.
GO uses Super-Sized trains, Super-Sized station platforms, Super-Sized buses, Super-Sized parking lots. Everything is bigger and takes up more space is the opposite of intensification. GO knows how to cater to the fat suburbanites and their fat kids and their SUV and reinforce their car-dependent lifestyle.
And that's why GO works. GO works because is not urban transit. GO is suburban transit and that is why it is seeing increased cost recovery while the urban transit systems (MT, TTC, YRT, Oakville Transit, etc.) are seeing declining cost recovery. GO is the future; the other systems will become just a footnote in hsitory
RedRocket191
Senior Member
So doady, I'm curious to hear your solution.
jeicow
Active Member
I think the low ridership can be attributed more to the lack of crossings over the railway tracks than anything. With only 13 crossings across an ~11km distance, getting people from north of the tracks to the 23 is nearly impossible. If I recall correctly, the typical distance people will walk to transit is 500m, but with an average distance between Lakeshore and the tracks being 325m, that cuts out the potential ridership distance by 35%. The longest gap between crossings is ~2.5km between Lorne Park Rd. and Mississauga Rd.
ShonTron
Moderator
Dude, you missed my point all together. It is possible to build dense suburban nodes around commuter rail stations. There's even an example in Mississauga. Then you go on about Mississauga Transit. I don't get it!
The busiest route in Mississauga meets two GO Stations. The 23 parallels the railway, passing through low density areas in between. It doesn't take people to Square One or the subway, and most people get to the Go Station by transit from the north. What are you saying?
Last edited:
doady
Senior Member
Because you brought up the examples of Chicago and New York. If the extensive commuter/regional rail systems encourage the suburbs of Chicago and New York to develop dense, pedestrian-friendly suburban nodes, then shouldn't those suburbs should have high local transit ridership as well? After all, unlike regional rail, local bus ridership is heavily dependent on density and pedestrian-access. But those suburbs have really poor local transit ridership , even worse than the worst 905 systems. There is only one bus system serving Chicago's 5+ million suburbanites, and it has less ridership than Mississauga Transit.
Which is part of the reason I brought up MT (and of course also because this thread is about MT). Its worst service and ridership just happens to be the areas near the Lakeshore line. If you look at the GTA as whole, it's the same story. Oakville, Burlington, Ajax, Pickering and Whitby just all just happen to have less bus service and ridership compared to the rest of the 905?? Again, perhaps it's just a coincidence or maybe there are other reasons.
But I think the Lakeshore line has yet produce a single dense and pedestrian-friendly node in the 905. I don't think even Port Credit and Hamilton count considering that were probably developed before GO Train service was introduced, but I could be wrong.