|
|
|
You can see the layout of Venture here showing the luggage space. It depends on the car type.
I tend to agree - sort of. You are correct that some people don't want anything to change. Others are less comfortable with non-incremental or non-gradual change. When you increase the size of a community by a significant percentage virtually all at once as a development or subdivision would, sure, some would benefit; others would see deteriorated traffic and congestion, inadequate infrastructure, higher taxes (to pay for infrastructure improvements), etc. If population is driven up by some increase in local employment, housing prices and rents drive up.
The sad thing is, we need a housing boom across Canada.The Ottawa area is no different. Personally, if the developer will pay for all the needed infrastructure, including establishing a transit system, then go for it. Somehow we need to fix the system that allows the NIMBY to win against everything.
Really now. Where does that happen? Do you know a developer that would do that?
Go for it. But, if your goal is more than just build homes, then the infrastructure needs to be in place. The challenge is that the infrastructure is usually put on to the existing taxpayer. The price of that house/condo you buy should include everything to get it there, not just what is on the lot. I know locally, there are "development fees" but that does not cover the actual costs of bringing the services to the lot line.
The fact that the land is cheap or expensive is irrelevant. The scale is what's important. Coordination and negotiation costs are likely to be prohibitive in existing urban areas. Depending on the jurisdiction developers pay huge amounts towards infrastructure. Obviously historically this wasn't necessarily the case, but in Toronto and Vancouver fully 1/3 of the cost of the average new development is Community-amenity-contributions.
I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse. Real estate development plus public transportation is a tried and true economic model that we have somehow forgotten in Canada. Economically they are massively complementary.
None that I can tell.
Baggage does not generate enough revenue to cover its costs. That's why there are no baggage cars unless absolutely necessary.
My recollection is that they removed baggage cars from all but one daily Montreal to Toronto train around when the LRC was introduced (did the Turbo have a baggage car - I can't remember?). I don't recall much uproar at the time. In decades of travel, I only recall using the baggage car once for a cat - but these days you can just bring them in the train with you.
People don't realize that not only do you have to pay for the cost of buying a baggage car, it also adds weight and rolling resistance to the train, increasing fuel consumption. Then there is the labour of having to check the baggage and get it on and off the train. Then there is the liability of "lost" and damaged luggage (which is bound to happen occasionally).
