Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan
And Surrey also added 73,000+ people between 2006 and 2011. That is just over 25% of the total amount of people the province took in. So theoretically Surrey's areas became quite a bit brighter.  |
Point taken. And looking more for a 2009 map, that is the case. Still, urban form of Surrey has not changed and this will always hinder its ability to achieve high walkability.
Devlin, 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan
I think Translink's biggest mistake is not giving Surrey (And the rest of the SoF for that matter) more options and more frequent options to take transit. Surrey is actually not that difficult to plan for. The super blocks are about the same size as the ones in Vancouver and it is a grid pattern. The only difference is that Vancouver was fortunate enough to have been developed in a time when "Suburbia" meant farmlands and the sticks, so they escaped much of the mish mash that Surrey has between the super blocks. Regardless of this, the main streets are all straight and easy to run buses up and down, just like Vancouver.
The largely urban North Surrey is barely different than East Vancouver in design. But much of the development in Vancouver has occured due to the frequent trolley buses making travel much easier around Vancouver. You would be hard pressed to remember a Vancouver bus route that had 1 - 2 hour intervals, something that is pretty easy for people in Surrey to remember.
|
Super blocks are the same, but the inner streets as I've pointed out aren't. And because of this urban form, it potentially impacts the ability for transit to achieve a higher ridership. A transit user is also a pedestrian. One must take into account the entire experience as a transit user beyond the experience on the transit vehicle.
For the record, I'm not advocating transit should be allocated for one municipality over another. I just feel that urban form and transport planning need to go hand-in-hand with one another.
Threaded Mode