|
|
|
Wrong. You forget that there's also the extra 2tph out to Mount Joy. So indeed Stouffville will get 8tph south of Unionville all day every day.
So convert the GO rail corridor's to LRT! That way he'll like the proposal!
I think the problem with the "there's a subway next to it argument" is that it assumes that everyone who needs to use the mall is well served by the subway or by the local transit. Sure, Yorkdale has a subway next to it, you know what else is next to it? HIghway 401. Same thing with the SRT. Last summer I was having issues receiving CESB payments, and the closest Service Canada was at STC. Time to reach by transit? 1h40. Time to reach by car? 25 mins. There are 2 situations where transit is useful. 1) Short distance trips where you live and work in close promity to each other (15 minute cities), and 2) Centralized trips where you're being pulled from an outer community to a centralized downtown. Cars will always be better at dispersed transportation where you need to travel between 2 unrelated and disconnected nodes. If STC introduces paid parking, it would be the equivalent of a face slap and a spit, because I'm effectively being fined for reaching there the only method that is realistic and practical for me. Your idea only works with the assumption that everyone who needs to use the facility can also easily access transit as a viable alternative which really isn't the case for everyone.
This can be belt and suspenders (both a charge for entry to the zone as well as highways leading into/through it). We should probably have a congestion charge for downtown. It would tend to reduce the rate of tolls that would need to be charged on the Gardiner/DVP to keep them flowing.
This is incredibly melodramatic. Are you face-slapped and spit on when paying for parking at Pearson? 90% of people arrive at Pearson by car. It is very impractical for most to get there by transit, at least currently, similar to your example.
6 tph is what TBOT proposed for the Stouffville corridor during off-peak. I am correct that Metrolinx's proposal has 2 more tph, at 8tbh.
Oh, I definitely misread. Disregard my earlier comment.
Its a face slap when you modify the status quo without offering a replacement. You're effectively saying "we don't like that you're using the car, so instead of offering you a viable alternative that makes you want to not use the car, you now have to pay extra for your commute, deal with it. Its the same reason why at least until GO RER opens, I find issue with just adding tolls to DVP/Gardiner because off peak, the alternative for many is slow, unreliable, and in general unviable. The general rule should be first you build and offer an alternative that acts as a viable replacement, and then you should be free to tamper with the old method of transportation. In the case of TD place, its a similar situation to the Gardiner. When GO RER opens, that will genuinely be a faster and more reliable way for the vast majority of GTHA residents than taking the car, so paid parking for the purposes of discouraging car use is okay since the alternative is there and is good enough. If you work in TD Place and have to commute during rush hours, GO is already a really good alternative so that's a complete nonissue. The same cannot be said for more dispersed locations such as STC. Its a false equivalence.
When we build RER, folks like you will just say it's unfair to put in tolls until we get RER 2. You will never be satisfied unless you can sit in glorious 15 kph traffic on highways, not spending a penny on tolls. The city is going to choke on traffic, and you don't care because you are entitled to 100% free highway use.
Not everyone will live beside a RER station. Subways are the only way. Subways to front doors of single detached homes and outside big box store. Subways and equity for all. RER as icing on the cake.
This is melodrama at a high level. But, perhaps you now get a sense of what it’s like to be a transit user and service is cut back, or a cyclist, and lanes are removed because drivers complain (or you’re told to just ‘share the road’). Non-drivers are expected to put up, while drivers expect nothing but gold-plated and cheap service. It’s nonsensical.
I believe the poster is from far east Scarborough and takes transit regularly. The problem is they want gold plated transit service everywhere while acknowledging that these things costs money it can’t be from anywhere that affects them as well.
And what makes you say that? I don't want to be stuck in the car in traffic, I want to be able to get to where I need to as quickly as possible and as efficiently as possible. If that means using the car then it means using the car. If it means taking a train, then it means taking a train. The reason why I'm a big advocate for elevated rail, subways, and GO RER is because I believe that they are our best tool for offering transit that is competitive with the car, something that would actively make me reconsider using the car the next time I take a trip downtown. In the case of GO RER, perhaps this is only because GO passes by somewhere where I live, but based off the promises Metrolinx has made (and I do want to specify the word promises since its entirely possible RER underdelivers), its entirely reasonable for me to never need to drive to downtown again, and to only drive to my local GO station where I take the train downtown, because based off the published time schedules and travel times, it would be a trip that is genuinely competitive with car travel times even outside of congested rush hours. The reason why I rag on LRT so much especially in suburbs isn't because I'm a car driver who doesn't want lanes taken away but because LRT isn't something I want to sit on to get where I need to go. If I wanted to get stuck behind red lights and stop every 300m for a stop I'd drive my car or take the bus. LRTs are far too slow to be an effective mode of transport for suburbs, and the only thing it would be effective in is having non suburbanites pat themselves on the back and proclaiming how they brought transit to suburbs, without thinking about whether or not this is useful for the community you're bringing it to. Do you know why I advocate for elevated rail? Because its the best of both worlds. It offers the seemless and *mostly* disruption free trips that a subway does, but does it while costing a lot less, and it offers having interesting views to look at when you're riding on it and looking out the window. If you want to reduce the car lanes on a major street to allow for elevated rail like on Eglinton, I honestly do not care, because elevated rail is a good alternative to cars, and having fast grade separated rail reduces my need, and the need of the people in my community lower or middle class to use their cars and get on trains.
Who ever argued for this? Seriously, who ever argued for this? I live in a location where not even in my wildest fantasies would I even dream of having a subway anywhere near my house, and I wouldn't even try to start advocating for it.
And when have I ever said anything of the sort? I have never, not once, advocated for the removal of pedestrian or cycle lanes in favour of car lanes anywhere on this forum, nor would I ever do that because that's silly and ridiculous. If you can find such a post I will eat my own words.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Can you tell me, where in my quote I said that _you_ said anything like that?
The "you" here implies that I didn't get a sense of what it was like before, and that this is a lesson that I should learn, and that I'm guilty of pushing for the removal of cycle lanes.
