Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
And yet oppose all the changes to enable improved urban design.
I've been very clear on my views. I didn't like the idea of LRT leaving the greenbelt. But if it was inevitable then let it go to a suburb with high ridership first.
If I had a magic wand, LRT would have never left the greenbelt and those funds would have been used to twin track and electrify the Trillium Line and build parking structures at all the terminus to go with the taxes on core parking spots.
And that's exactly what Stage 2 and Stage 3 will do. Why commuter rail is needed on top of the billions spend on LRT is beyond me. You know what is needed in the burbs? Buses.
Also, let's not forget the topic of this thread: rural bus service. And as I keep saying, showing me why we should subsidize this. I am not opposed to CRT running buses to Ottawa. I just don't see why they should get discounted passes on top of that.
Impacts the suburbs far more than it impacts residents inside the greenbelt.
Except for every instance when you offer an excuse on why intensification can't happen....
Ah yes. It works everywhere else in the world. But Ottawa is a special snowflake so it won't work here.
|
Man, you argue with me for nothing. Do you not see the nuance in my comments?
I support better urban design. I support intensification. I support investing in LRT where it makes sense. I support better public transit in general. My comment history has consistently questioned whether MOOSE's solution is viable. I have never said that city residents should subsidize rural transit. Most people have said (and I agree) that rural municipalities should be subsidizing their own service. On the other hand, one poster (who is very knowledgeable about OC operations) has said that rural passengers should receive a discounted rate (which is different from a subsidized rate) simply because the vast majority will only using a small part of the OC system and only the part that is most efficient. That should be considered only if it makes sense.
You are the one that made the comment that we should put tolls at the Greenbelt. That is not going to make a better city.
Another poster has indicated that 80% of population should live inside the Greenbelt. That is not going to happen. We would have to turn back the clock 50 or 60 years to have ever accomplished that. We have laid out too much low density development inside the Greenbelt. Too late. Yes, we can intensify, but that can only occur one property at a time. I am just being realistic. That is not opposition. Understand? Not likely.
I am interested in making Ottawa a better city. That means making the city work better everywhere. We should not be trying to ghettoize any part of the city on principle. Good grief. We have seen how that kind of thing has worked in the United States. Many American cities are now scrambling to correct much worse messes than Ottawa, created by bad urban renewal, building non-sustainable road networks, poorly planned (or totally unplanned) sprawl etc.
There is also a reason why North American cities have evolved differently than those in Asia and Europe. It is cultural and it relates to the fact that the majority of population with roots going back a few or more generations were from farms. People value having a bit of land and actually many gained a comfortable lifestyle through land ownership. This will change as people get further from their farming roots and as more people come to Canada from where urban cultures were different. This explains the very low density nature of 1950s and 1960s suburbs, when many people were only one generation off the farm and had experienced the poverty of the Great Depression and the shortages during the war.
Threaded Mode