Comment 67263

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted August 03, 2011 at 00:20:39

The "unbearable lightness" of mass transit:

One thing that we may all agree on in our collective 21st century commuter angst is the sustainable imperative of being "light" in our "transit" solutions. Yet, we are unable to arrive at consensus on the nature of mass-transit that Hamilton requires.

An array of logical solutions evade us by our continuing failure to articulate the 'R' word that connects Light to Transit.

Some consciously use 'R' to mean: 'rapid'; while most continue to imagine it as: 'rail'.

Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Light Rapid Transit (LRT) are two distinctly different approaches to developing transit solutions.

Both nuances of LRT are equally adept at projecting images of growth, real-estate development and jobs. However if one steps back far enough from the tracks that are already etched in our minds - what one sees are two very distinct planning and aesthetic outcomes from these two very different renditions of the 'R' word.

One, that heals urban fractures by its inherent lightness of purpose - provided the tracks are laid out with the express purposes of connecting all the scattered points of frequent travel. Here rapid becomes secondary to the complex meandering patterns of urban connectivity based on time of day and events. Here, the emerging richness of urban texture is what gives rise to a dispersed economic & aesthetic ripple effect that spreads equitably across urban communities, while directly delivering the much sought after counterpoint to automobile dependency within urban cores.

And the other – that misguidedly makes speed and time a solution for rapid economic growth - by connecting two arbitrary points in the stable suburban extremities, while – unknowingly fracturing the city into the right side and the wrong side of the tracks.

Our ability to define this 'R' word more meaningfully, will dictate whether we accelerate the rebirth of Hamilton's lower city by integrating our transit network into the very fabric of our city; or put it on a rapid, linear track of self-destruction by dividing it into four lateral halves.

A kind of physical division that will only petrify the already congealing class divisions in our city.

Many of you will be old enough in 2050 to look back and muse: What the hell did we end up doing? What were we thinking? Were we naively deploying imagery from the golden days of the frontier mentality which once opened up the economy of this continent through heavy linear rail tracks? Did we all get seduced by the sepia tone bustle of towns popping up on such linear tracks from the east coast to the west?

I sincerely hope that in 2050, you are not compelled to answer this with a resounding: "yes", while your children, then adults, glare at you in anger.

This may well be your answer if the current cavalier approach to planning our transit solution, does leads to a laterally divided city with the rapid aspect of the linear east-west transit movement soon taking precedence over contextual urban connectivity – as revenue pressures begin to mount within the first few years of operations, and substantial growth continues to evade the urban core.

Take two lengths of a string, measure its lengths to match the total lengths of the east and west bound LR/RT tracks on the proposed B-Line plan that is available on the city website. Then get a paper map of the city with bus lines, and stick coloured push-pins on all the points of interest and daily/weekly use you want to see connected in the lower city – with a new kind of transit network that meanders thru our lower city core – with future spurs to the east, west and south of the city. A kind of transit pattern which would help you and your family to become less dependent on your car to experience the lower city.

Then ask your children to sit in front of this map and explain to them that you want their inputs on a mass-transit issue that will define the future of the lower city and its core.

Request them to connect these push-pins with the pre-measured strings you have cut. Tell them about light rail, and how it could help them get around our city without a car. Tell them to avoid running the strings through someones home or property, and use thinner pins to navigate the string around street corners.

Also tell them these string connections representing the tracks of a light rail, could be built in phases and give them a heads-up on the cost of that string (translated per inch of string, from the estimated cost of $800 Million for the B-Line). Let them move the pins around the map to explore different points of interest in the lower city and the core which they see themselves, you and their grand-parents frequenting.

You will be quite amazed at the transformative urban experience your children are able to plan with the light rail – while leaving enough string unused for future spurs. That is, if you only resist the temptation to interrupt them with grand gestures while they are quietly planning their future.

Have them draw the patterns they come up with as their version of the proposed B-Line map. Then have them share this map with their friend who live the furthest from you in this city to get their inputs, and have them recalibrate the pins & string patterns as required.

Also let them know that the money to build this network which they have just planned may not arrive in good time, so what then happens to economic growth and their future job prospects? Wait for their answer. They will not fail to surprise you.

You may soon begin to see how and why planning in our city has unnecessarily become a heavy battle of wits for decades – as you begin to overcome the urge to interject and put an end to the play.

The utilitarian aspects of light rail transit and its resulting aesthetics are not two distinct entities. Urban form is a result of how utilitarian aspects of city building are handled.

It is from looking at things as a ‘once-in-100-years decision’ that our heaviness comes from. This is substantially different from the old English planners who 'designed in 100-year terms' based on extensive local discovery that straddled the aesthetic and utilitarian.

We entirely skip the play aspect of planning and dive fast into adult-speak – from which arises our pre-matured hardened positions as planners and urbanists, resulting in our brutally simplistic and linear solutions which fail us every thirty years.

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2011-08-03 00:34:06

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds