Comment 82504

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted November 01, 2012 at 09:45:37 in reply to Comment 82484

This is chicken/egg. You say "If we start getting the density and long touted change to the core".

This does not just happen by magic. We need to make planning decisions to create incentives for intensification. LRT is part of this and we can't just shelve it because it's too expensive. Infrastructure costs are always front loaded. An investment in our future. Why is LRT not viewed the same way?

We built a highway through the red hill creek even though nobody was trying to drive cars through it beforehand. We are planning to build an overpass at clappisons because we expect more traffic in the future. We are planning sewer expansions because we expect more toilet flushes. Some brainiacs want to spend a half billion MINIMUM on aerotropolis because there might be a warehouse that wants to locate up there someday. We don't bat an eye at these. But with transit, we aren't allowed to plan for the future (and use it to shape our future)? Why?

With transit it's always "wait til we are overflowing and then add a bus".

With transit we have to be cheapskate reactionaries?

With highways we just build them. This induces future demand and shapes our landscape.

It's time for a different shape.

I vote down for offensiveness and up for humour. I cast no votes based on my level of agreement.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds