[sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization

Chris Bradshaw c_bradshaw at rogers.com
Tue Mar 21 12:13:46 JST 2006


Light rail is indeed more popular with riders, and it has lower negative
impacts on adjacent land uses.  However, it shares with BRT 1) long
distances between stations and 2) the fact that it is not compatible with
service-rich, walkable main streets.

Street cars are superior at this, using the middle of the road, and allowing
for wider sidewalks at corners, and not being at the mercy of auto traffic
(but in fact, the reverse).

Both light rail and BRT run in corridors that are totally segregated from
both cars and street life.  They are good at moving people long distances,
but poor at maintaining or rebuilding the "fabric" of a city, the system of
millions of interconnections that are informal and spontaenous.

And they help suburbs survive as still 90% sprawl, where most people might
agree to use transit for their working trip, but won't use it for their
daily non-commuting trips -- and therefore have to own a car.  Once the
car-key is in the pocket (and the high payments staring the owner in the
face every month), the car will get the nod for most trips.

Where density warrants, the subway is the only acceptible alternative to
street cars, since it can provide fast, long trips, and not disrupt (in
fact, it supports) healthy main streets, vs. the suburb's "activity centres"
with their huge fringes of parking .

Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list