Quote:
Originally Posted by DTcrawler
I guess we fundamentally disagree here because you have it totally opposite in that the traffic caused by people opting to drive because of reliability or travel times or their general mistrust of transit far outweighs the traffic caused by bike lanes and complete streets (a theory debunked by the principle of induced demand when considering the long run).
In general no I'd say there haven't been any notable cuts to rush hour transit service (apart from upcoming cuts to 200-series routes that people might be acting in anticipation of) but I'm referring more so to the general abandonment of transit that's happened over the past decade+ ironically coinciding with a change of direction in 2011.
Yes we'd need a pie in the sky tax plan to save transit by tomorrow but more modest tax increases over the past decade would've done the trick too. And Sutcliffe and co. could at least chart us on a path that undoes past wrongs gradually and somewhat palatably but instead he's doubling down, even in the face of transit (and general city mobility) crisis and further handicapping residents down the road.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougvdh
I hadn't realized that was why the 417 and 174 are always such a shit shows these days.
|
Well many posters cited the success of complete streets routing cars from main street to the 417 where they belong. Is that wrong?
What amount of transit funding makes traffic even in the medium term better on the 417 during rush hour? What specific project would enable this? 200 bus routes being cut in the future? Seems doubtful but that is at least possible.
We launched a huge spending binge in 2011 so it doesn't seem like austerity that caused our current problems. There were a few value engineering things and elimination of express busses surely cost us riders but keeping those running next to trains really doesn't make sense in any realistic scenario.
Threaded Mode