Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
Well, streetscaping might help a bit, but prettiftying an area that is largely parking lots, abandoned run-down buildings and crumbling facades doesn't help much if those who want to build things are frustrated by development rules that make it uneconomic to invest in projects. As I stated the the Skye thread, something you voted to make go away
By combining the walk & bike numbers you and others who do the same are deceiving the audience. The walk numbers are likely the same as they have always been - if you are lucky enough to live close to where you work then you can walk to work. Sidewalks have been in place forever and council does nothing to change that or affect those numbers much. In reality, by rejecting projects like Skye you are doing just the opposite. Lumping those numbers into those who bike - perhaps 1% of workers - makes the bike numbers ridiculously inflated over reality. The thing is, all it takes is simple observation to see that virtually nobody uses the lanes that have been built. They cost money and reduce traffic flow and parking. As the anti-development types invariably say at public hearings, "We're not Toronto!". And we aren't, and we're certainly not Portland or Seattle or San Diego either. They are largely useless in a hilly downtown that is in the grip of winter nearly half the year. Only the hard-core fringe bike nuts use them. That is not a wise use of tax dollars.
Look, I respect that you ran and got elected. I truly do. It's not something I would attempt. But it seems that you and some of your colleagues lose perspective on what the majority wants from Council shortly after taking office. We want the downtown to be vibrant, not bombed-out, we want to be able to get around it easily, we want a reason to go there and we want a way to get there and spend time there. Supporting bus routes to Porters Lake and spending money on bike lanes and sending developers away and making it harder to go downtown and park and spend money isn't the way to do that.
|
There is no silver bullet, you need to move forward slowly and steadly on all fronts. You need to look at what business are actually saying about why they locate or do not located in down town, why people do or do not shop downtown.
The public realm stuff is part of competitiveness but not a silver bullet. We need to move forward on ALL those things big and small, and a city this size with this many staff with an almost billon dollar budget needs to be able to talk about taxes, competativeness, incentives, transportation, parking and public realm all the same time, you have to create the conditions for private sector to want to build, for people to want to shop downtown.
I don't agree at all on your summary of AT - we are doing better, the numbers are improving, and there are actual user data to support it, and we will keep getting better, but we can be smart about it... local bike way on Creighton Maynard might cost a million, bike lanes on Agricola with more parking on side streets is about $20,000 in paint. Lets do Agricola.
But as far as transit goes, you know I am against coverage at the expense of quality. Simply put, every Metro X bus costs the same as FOUR city buses. You want the 52 to run at 7 minute intervals? That costs the same as a bus to Porters Lake. It does not make ANY sense to try and extend transit to rural HRM, or to tax people in rural HRM for the service. Tax and service should end and the municipal service boundary IMHO. Rural transit is killing Metro Transits cost recovery stats, and that is Council's fault for making it happen.