tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post7945427201418193207..comments2024-03-23T13:18:17.693-05:00Comments on Anybody Want A Peanut?: Rapid Transit: PHASE IIcherenkovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355986781478585611noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-72620966046566217452014-07-25T10:28:42.546-05:002014-07-25T10:28:42.546-05:00Why are we spending $590 million dollars on this p...Why are we spending $590 million dollars on this project, when the 161 only takes 11 minutes? At 7.6 km, I can't see it taking any shorter than 9 minutes with rapid transit. Do the math. If 12 000 people use it everyday, they would each have to pay $155 per hour saved over 40 years. No one riding the bus would pay $155 for an hour. If we can save them one minute, by using transit priority signal, and off-board fare collection, we have around $7 million to put in that type of rapid transit.njaohnthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04239667516773708469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-67530299253382153912013-03-01T20:16:00.285-06:002013-03-01T20:16:00.285-06:00I have had a lot more time than many others to thi...I have had a lot more time than many others to think about the development issue surrounding the Toronto subway. I watched it built and saw what happened around it. My own view is that later development (remember the word later) away from the destination points was more a reaction to the demise of the existing commercial and residential infrastructure. In other words, the core of the city was rotten and the rot became more visible and open to exploitation near the line. If you want to see where the earlier actual development money went it was out along the edges in Scarborough and towards the northwest away from the N/S subway. <br />On the issue of the developer, I do not know him or work for him. i just see an environment which is not conducive to development. unclebobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16108804757944657087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-84890297414905232442013-02-28T23:05:03.065-06:002013-02-28T23:05:03.065-06:00Yes, I'm afraid RT will be compromised by bad ...Yes, I'm afraid RT will be compromised by bad planning like many things around here. Sigh.<br /><br />No worries about the pun. This is a pun-friendly environment.cherenkovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355986781478585611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-54366091264263568082013-02-28T20:09:22.577-06:002013-02-28T20:09:22.577-06:00you've done a swell job of criticizing the dog...you've done a swell job of criticizing the dog-leg. i'm afraid that we'll never have an efficient rt system. transit is not a tool for greenfield development. it's about providing public transportation where it's needed most. i'm not sure that's how the city sees it.<br /><br />bad pun alert!<br /><br />when will they learn to follow the straight and narrow path. <br /><br />sorry.ekimsharpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15100571778278590106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-81839895671357358002013-02-28T16:38:38.231-06:002013-02-28T16:38:38.231-06:00Sorry Uncle, but I can't agree on two counts.
...Sorry Uncle, but I can't agree on two counts.<br /><br />1st: You wrote: "When i consider for example the subway in Toronto, the densification expands at the most common couple of destination stops downtown as opposed to either end."<br /><br />Not sure if you've been there lately, but by any other city's standards, Toronto now has residential and commercial downtowns at multiple points on the transit grid, not just mere densification. I'm not about to suggest we'd see anything like that with a BRT line on Pembina, but even a cynic like me can expect 5-10 new apartment buildings would appear within a few years on our own "rapid" transit line. <br /><br />2. You said: "The only difference is that Transit is probably going to cut apart and complicate the owner's existing plan." That discounts the possibility that this *was* the plan - that Transit will now pay more to buy right of way than Marquess paid for the original swapped parcel, generating a profit for him without his even having to take the risk of development. He can then flip the rest and walk away whole with zero risk.<br /><br />That said, I agree on going straight. I'm not convinced the (minor) AT problem can't be solved some other way.Brianhttp://www.stateofthecity.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-38611683795595807642013-02-28T08:27:21.756-06:002013-02-28T08:27:21.756-06:00I am struggling to see how you get densification o...I am struggling to see how you get densification on any line that is deliberately designed to run past everything rapidly. When i consider for example the subway in Toronto, the densification expands at the most common couple of destination stops downtown as opposed to either end. But in this case people were already going there. We would not have such points on our route no matter which one you picked If anything there might be densification at the destination of the University but I do not see that as helpful for tax base or private economic development.<br />As to development of the Parker lands - I can see why he is indifferent. They are going to get developed anyway so Transit should not pat itself on the back too quickly. The only difference is that Transit is probably going to cut apart and complicate the owner's existing plan. <br />I think I am with the peanut - bite the bullet and go straight. that is what rapid is about. You can never trust bureaucrats to get it right. unclebobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16108804757944657087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-26282412745005262392013-02-28T07:19:25.254-06:002013-02-28T07:19:25.254-06:00Hey it's the Brians ...
B1: Good point. I tho...Hey it's the Brians ...<br /><br />B1: Good point. I thought I would leave AT to a bike enthusiast like you. Building a bike lane up Pembina is always an option as well..<br /><br />B2: The study mentions somewhere that there is potential for more densification along the Letellier line, but they estimate the incremental tax base increase as 1/3 of the crooked route. I think they're off base with that. Like you say, there are lots of spaces along Pembina that could potentially be re-developed. I would like to see a details of how they came to their estimate.cherenkovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355986781478585611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-57723808377892029692013-02-27T23:55:28.200-06:002013-02-27T23:55:28.200-06:00I also want us to talk more about this bizarre not...I also want us to talk more about this bizarre notion that there's no room for transit-oriented development on the straight Letellier - Pembina route. That's true only if you assume that development must be greenfield, yet I can think of more than a few broken down storefronts on Pembina itself that'd be steps away from the line that'd be suitable for densification.Brianhttp://www.stateofthecity.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-15632883263594716672013-02-27T23:38:42.356-06:002013-02-27T23:38:42.356-06:00The other flawed argument is the AT component. App...The other flawed argument is the AT component. Apparently the proponents of the dog-leg route insist the straight route does not have enough space to include a bike path. Yet if I am riding along Pembina, the increased distance that the dog leg route covers makes me dismiss that route for cycling. <br /><br />So if there is no possibility for a bike path along the Letellier route, then really the AT compoent is irrelevant as nobody will use it anywayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com