50041301768_89e705b7c9_k-jpg.254148
50044493462_9df5a72c5f_k.jpg
50041301758_cee0fed0a1_k.jpg
50044494317_efc69e8787_k.jpg
50044410112_195975b26a_k (1).jpg
 

Attachments

  • 50041301768_89e705b7c9_k.jpg
    50041301768_89e705b7c9_k.jpg
    385.7 KB · Views: 1,069
@Aaron_Lloyd The problem I have with that thinking is that is still in the box of conventional development patterns, i.e. everyone lives at the fringes and commutes into the core.

This pattern is changing, and this line is enabling new and mixed development where a "faster" line would never have bothered to reach.

The goal isn't to compete with private vehicles, the goal is to build up more of the city into communities where vehicles are optional by default, not just optional for commuting.
 
Daveography said:
@Aaron_Lloyd The problem I have with that thinking is that is still in the box of conventional development patterns, i.e. everyone lives at the fringes and commutes into the core.

This pattern is changing, and this line is enabling new and mixed development where a "faster" line would never have bothered to reach.
Click to expand...
Indeed. New development & redevelopment opportunities that wouldn't be possible with an 87 Avenue alignment and University Station connection, to name one very obvious example.
Sure, it might've been 10 minutes faster to WEM and have fewer stations, but it would completely fail to provide a maximum benefit to the residential areas it would've tunnelled through.
 
While I certainly agree with the point of changing development patterns I worry that the value of getting more people onto transit would have been greater than that in the end. Decreasing the need for parking downtown I think is really key for killing off a lot of the surface parking lots we have and creating a more vibrant core.

Overall I'm still happy that something's being built.
 
Last edited:
Daveography said:
The goal isn't to compete with private vehicles, the goal is to build up more of the city into communities where vehicles are optional by default, not just optional for commuting.
Click to expand...
That's a good point because without this perspective the logical default assumption is that we're building LRT to provide a more efficient transportation system for people who are already driving to downtown from the suburbs and to entice them out of their cars, which this system won't do. Looking at it from a perspective of building an alternate transportation system in order to encourage more "car less" developments going forward, it makes a lot more sense.
 
I've lived downtown (99st jasper) for 15+ years, and I've always avoided driving in/out of here during peak hours (eg, work day hours). It's a nightmare with the traffic, and will be even more so when they strip 104 and 102 ave a few lanes of vehicular traffic. From my experience alone, i do whatever I can to avoid this situation. That said, for the people like me, taking a direct route via LRT without the constant stop and go being stuck in car traffic, would be a god send.

However, if I didn't have to deal with the traffic congestion, I'd stick to my car.
 
There's an interesting phenomenon that happens when you reduce vehicle roadway capacity that seems unintuitive but keeps happening.

gizmodo.com

Six Freeway Removals That Changed Their Cities Forever

It seems counterintuitive, right? Rip out eight lanes of freeway through the middle of your metropolis and you’ll be rewarded with not only less traffic, but safer, more efficient cities? But it’s true, and it’s happening in places all over the world.
gizmodo.com gizmodo.com

grist.org

What happens to traffic when you tear down a freeway?

We looked at a real-world examples in Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle to see if tearing down highways makes traffic worse.
grist.org grist.org
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top