Think about this attitude here, there are two things going on: 1) to make a transit center accessible = to make it accessible to drivers 2) therefore it has to be kept away from houses and shops, because the traffic and parking would be disruptive Park and ride = bad transit!https://twitter.com/tlockney/status/1030983254805897216 …
Sure, I'll concede that there's not necessarily a better location on the line to build a stop (I might argue if it were a neighborhood I knew). So the trick is--once having built the station--to build around it, instead of leaving it to parking. Takes a long time tho.
-
-
It's not just a long time. It's a commitment between the transit authority, the city and metro planners, the developers, and the community to be focused on a decades long plan. That's where things break down consistently.
-
My main point is that picking on Trimet (operators of Portland's transit) is the wrong target. I'd argue they've done remarkably well, all things considered.
-
That's reasonable, when comparing among American operators. But lest Trimet think they're already doing the best job *possible,* it's important to be clear on where they still fall short and have room to improve.
-
It's also important, I think, for developers, planners, community members, etc, to have some clear picture of what Trimet is trying to achieve in the eventual future. We talk about using transit more, but many don't have a mental image more detailed than "status quo + a train"
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.