Comment 52105

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted November 24, 2010 at 03:31:13

LRT can't be looked at in a vacuum. Our city spends hundreds of millions on projects which benefit mainly or exclusively motorists. The Red Hill and Linc would be good examples, as would our plague of surface parking lots. LRT offers a chance to spend this kind of cash on something that benefits people who don't drive. Not only because many of us don't own cars, but also because many people would like to not own cars.

As for the chicken-and-egg argument of demand and generated investment, it seems a little silly to me. If LRT routes aren't chosen based on real-world data, they'll fail. Period. When they don't, good things happen along their lines. But building lines to nowhere in order to encourage sprawl (Vancouver's airport line, for instance) misses the point. We're not trying to encourage new developments, we're trying to do something that makes better in the existing city.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools