[Mapleson]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the reason for the service cuts due to the fact that there was supposed to be a fare hike this year and everyone went ballistic?

The fare hike this year lasted about 7 hours, maybe less. Not really time for an outcry, as by the time most people had read that they proposed a 10 cent price rise, they also heard it wasn't needed.

Nobody really raised a fuss last year with the 25 cent rise, they just had people hording tokens.

 

[BMO]

I say just put King, Queen, Dundas, and College in their own ROW. King and Queen are basically a dedicated ROW during rush hour anyway as commuter lanes. have platforms at wider spaced stops, and this would deal with the issue of a streetcar stopping and people holding up traffic because their disembarking off of the vehicle to get to the sidewalk.

If ROW is absolutely impossible I would settle for at least putting in platforms at wider spaced stops. Similar to stops at Queen and Bathurst or College and Bathurst.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe elevated subway trains too.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Besides a couple posters, it seems (sadly) that most people seem to think that the best way to reduce congestion is to faciliate automobile movement...

...this is - as Kristin said, backwards 1950's planning that has proven over and over NOT to work in the long run...if we want to get people OUT of their cars, we don't faciliate this mode of transportation. But I guess I'm being naive b/c this administration does NOT want to get people out of their cars...instead they want to encourage more car use by making car trips more attractive while turning my downtown into another suburban shithole...no thanks!

The way of the future, both in terms of reducing congestion AND pollution, is to invest in transit AND design streets for people, not cars.

 

[gweed123]

Besides a couple posters, it seems (sadly) that most people seem to think that the best way to reduce congestion is to faciliate automobile movement...

...this is - as Kristin said, backwards 1950's planning that has proven over and over NOT to work in the long run...if we want to get people OUT of their cars, we don't faciliate this mode of transportation. But I guess I'm being naive b/c this administration does NOT want to get people out of their cars...instead they want to encourage more car use by making car trips more attractive while turning my downtown into another suburban shithole...no thanks!

The way of the future, both in terms of reducing congestion AND pollution, is to invest in transit AND design streets for people, not cars.

That's not the feeling I get at all. The feeling I get is that the #1 thing I'm getting that people want is more efficient streetcar movement through downtown, either through dedicated lanes or transit malls or what have you.

A lot of people have been asking for signal coordination, but that's a computer programming exercise, not an infrastructure exercise. There's nothing "1950s" about making your existing road infrastructure function more efficiently. It's when you start adding road infrastructure capacity that it becomes an issue.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I'm currently in Montreal, and some of the most pedestrian friendly streets happen to be one-way.

In fact, we really should look to Montreal on how to build a great city. They have plenty of road infrastructure and congestion isn't too bad, but the pedestrian, transit, and cycling networks are so attractive they make people WANT to use alternative modes of transportation.

I think I was responding more to the previous posters position that Jane Jacobs was more an observational commentator and had very little training in urban affairs. Not that I'm questioning the value of knowledge gained on the street vs in the classroom.

Certainly one way streets can be done well and be pedestrian and cycling friendly, if they're designed that way. The poster questioned Jane's position that one way streets were strictly vehicle oriented, and proposed that perhaps there were other factors which Jane ignored that contributed to decline in NY. Though creating one way streets was the most visual aspect connected to that decline.

My sarcasm was because the tendency on forums like this is to take Jane's teachings as bible and not look at them with a critical eye.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Explanation

That's not the feeling I get at all. The feeling I get is that the #1 thing I'm getting that people want is more efficient streetcar movement through downtown, either through dedicated lanes or transit malls or what have you.

A lot of people have been asking for signal coordination, but that's a computer programming exercise, not an infrastructure exercise. There's nothing "1950s" about making your existing road infrastructure function more efficiently. It's when you start adding road infrastructure capacity that it becomes an issue.

My perspective is shaped by two things...

...one is that there are 'some' suggestions that the best way to reduce congestion downtown is by adding one-way streets (and in fact having as the 'model' road 3 lanes all one-way), extending roadways (Front street), adding ramps and even it was mentioned 'casually' of a private firm adding more road capacity by building underground.

...and the other is that when someone like EnviroTo & WK suggests opposite policies to DIScourage car use, they're told it won't work and then the threads go back to talking about ways to make it easy for cars to come in and out of downtown...

...now having said that I haven't gone back through the posts to cherrypick the specific quotes that relate to why I think what I think - so I could be wrong, but it's just that there seems to be a focus on facilitating car movement as the 'main' way to ease congestion, and that's what I mean by 1950's planning...

And all this is in a larger context where I'm reminded of the recent removal of the Jarvis bike lane and eliminating the $60.00 automobile fee...2 acts that focus on making life easier for drivers by encouraging them to drive 'more'...

Under Miller the 'main' focus to increase mobility seemed to be on 'transit' with less congestion being a byproduct of fewer drivers.

Individual responsibility and freedom of choice is a cornerstone of right-wing thinkers, so if suburbanites made the choice to support the suburban model of development, then why should I have my 'chosen' urban model/lifestyle affected (turning my streets into thoroughfares) just so they can get downtown faster (i.e. 1950's planning...focussed 'mainly' on the suburbs and cars).

 

[Chuck]

Under Miller the 'main' focus to increase mobility seemed to be on 'transit' with less congestion being a byproduct of fewer drivers.

This ideology breaks down in a city that is growing quickly, such as Toronto. With all of the new office towers and condos being built, no transportation policy can ever reduce the absolute number of cars on the road. Don't worry my friend, traffic will never be better than it is today.

I see that you took issue with my idea, which reduced road space by 33%, created physically separate bike lanes on every arterial road, and widened the sidewalks by perhaps 20%. Why? Because it also allows cars to move more freely? There are plenty of ways that we can discourage car use, and these include tolls, fees, parking rates, and gas prices. For those who do end up driving, it would be foolish to make their trips slower just because we refuse to make better use of existing road capacity.

I'll point to New York again, since it's the most comparable major city to Toronto. Despite the highway-like roads which run up and down Manhattan, people still tend to prefer not driving due to the high cost of doing so, and the ease of using transit. But since automobile use is still required, they at least strive to maximize the capacity of their streets. Why shouldn't Toronto do the same?

 

[Danielinthecity]

This ideology breaks down in a city that is growing quickly, such as Toronto. With all of the new office towers and condos being built, no transportation policy can ever reduce the absolute number of cars on the road. Don't worry my friend, traffic will never be better than it is today.

I see that you took issue with my idea, which reduced road space by 33%, created physically separate bike lanes on every arterial road, and widened the sidewalks by perhaps 20%. Why? Because it also allows cars to move more freely? There are plenty of ways that we can discourage car use, and these include tolls, fees, parking rates, and gas prices. For those who do end up driving, it would be foolish to make their trips slower just because we refuse to make better use of existing road capacity.

I'll point to New York again, since it's the most comparable major city to Toronto. Despite the highway-like roads which run up and down Manhattan, people still tend to prefer not driving due to the high cost of doing so, and the ease of using transit. But since automobile use is still required, they at least strive to maximize the capacity of their streets. Why shouldn't Toronto do the same?

There's a misunderstanding if you think I took issue with reducing road space, creating physically separate bike lanes on every arterial road, and widening sidewalks...I never said that...those are all good ideas which I support entirely.

My point is simply that with limited resources and with an urban (or 'sub'urban) history where the needs of automobile always came ahead of every other mode of transport as well as being front and centre of all development considerations, that maybe we should for once REthink which mode of transport is given primacy when planning transportation and developments (like changing the minimum parking rule for example)...

...in other words I think we should tip the scales in favour of planning for people FIRST and cars SECOND...i.e. prioritizing a healthy mode over an unhealthty one.

For example, Vancouver has a plan whereby they specifically set out a hierarchy of land use planning whereby the car isn't at the top of the priority hierarchy.

So I'm definitely not disagreeing with your suggestions, but I also want them to be the FIRST consideration. In other words, rather than ask the question, how can we make cars move easier in and out of downtown, why not ask how do we make pedestrian life better? If were investing our time and energy on the former, the latter will be an afterthought and that's what I meant, and given the current regime that's what I'm concerned about.

So I'm not really sure were really disagreeing...I think we agree, but I also want to see the car take a BACKseat for once, UNTIL other modes of transport catch up.

In Vancouver's Transportation Plan, "the City made a clear choice to make investments in such areas as prioritizing pedestrian and bike access and safety, widening sidewalks, calming traffi c in neighbourhoods, increasing greenway and bikeway development and making transit improvements. These investments prioritize transportation options other than car use".

This is a direct quote and THIS is what I'm trying to say.

As for NYC's wide roads, I'd rather see Paris's narrow ones with TONS of accessible transit. And the road capacity could be utilized by those involved in goods movement.

 

[Danielinthecity]

In Vancouver's Transportation Plan, "the City made a clear choice to make investments in such areas as prioritizing pedestrian and bike access and safety, widening sidewalks, calming traffi c in neighbourhoods, increasing greenway and bikeway development and making transit improvements. These investments prioritize transportation options other than car use".

I probably should have highlighted this in my last post...

 

[EnviroTO]

...and the other is that when someone like EnviroTo & WK suggests opposite policies to DIScourage car use, they're told it won't work and then the threads go back to talking about ways to make it easy for cars to come in and out of downtown...

I'm not against cars. I think the money should be spent on things such as a Legion Rd underpass and Express and Collectors between 427 and 409. Filling in missing links makes sense. The reality, whether or not suburbanites can handle it, is that there isn't vast empty parking lots and lanes of downtown streets waiting for them with untapped capacity. You can build a 20 lane stacked Gardiner downtown and it simply will not work because there is nowhere for these people to go. The off ramps would simply back up and kill the flow of the Gardiner. The only way to move more people around downtown are to move them in vehicles which either don't take up space parking or take up very little space, and which can result in greater carrying capacity of existing roadways in people terms. Downtown Toronto doesn't have six lane streets everywhere, and most of its blocks don't have streets spaced 250ft apart anymore (developments in the past got rid of that street grid). We need to realize this and find the way to move more people on those corridors, not more cars. Transit is the only option. Focusing on ways to move cars only makes streets less hospitable while at the same time not solving the problem.

That said, I'm not sure the cart should be put before the horse. A network of separated bike lanes should be built without putting them on primary surface routes first, only putting them on primary routes to fill in network gaps. It doesn't make sense to try to make transit coverts out of people when the transit system is at maximum capacity as well. Removing traffic lanes before providing an transit alternative with significant capacity to spare makes no sense.

 

[BMO]

...The reality, whether or not suburbanites can handle it, is that there isn't vast empty parking lots and lanes of downtown streets waiting for them with untapped capacity. You can build a 20 lane stacked Gardiner downtown and it simply will not work because there is nowhere for these people to go. The off ramps would simply back up and kill the flow of the Gardiner. The only way to move more people around downtown are to move them in vehicles which either don't take up space parking or take up very little space, and which can result in greater carrying capacity of existing roadways in people terms...

funny enough, there isn't a vast amount of parking downtown at present (not unlike 10 yrs ago), because the market for parking has changed, due to greater difficulty getting downtown. I'm sure if it was easier to get downtown the market would change the area, and we would see more parking spaces.

I'm not an advocate for choosing one transportation method over another, I believe in choice. If people want to drive downtown via the congested DVP or Gardner let them, but provide another means for people to get downtown. Some of our poorest neighbourhoods have the highest car usage, because there simply isn't adequate transportation in these neighbourhoods. Shunning car usage downtown does nothing but benefit people who already use transit downtown (usually a more affluent demographic), and nothing for the working class people who HAVE to use their car to get downtown, and HAVE to purchase a house in the suburbs, because they HAVE to feed their family, and cannot afford to live downtown where transit is much better.

I feel like alot of the time people on these boards view car usage as a rich man's transportation choice, but in reality, it is quite the opposite in many areas.

 

[BMO]

Individual responsibility and freedom of choice is a cornerstone of right-wing thinkers, so if suburbanites made the choice to support the suburban model of development, then why should I have my 'chosen' urban model/lifestyle affected (turning my streets into thoroughfares) just so they can get downtown faster (i.e. 1950's planning...focussed 'mainly' on the suburbs and cars).

Typical urbanite...tisk...if only everyone had the "choice" of living downtown where access to services and everything was easier. The reality is that the downtown is where (still) a large majority of jobs are located. The downtown isn't some neighbourhood community garden that needs protecting from outsiders, it is, and should be, used by ALL people. Facilitating, what seems to be, the only efficient and accessible method for suburbanites to get downtown is not wrong, especially when there is no plan to provide any other method, other than driving, to get downtown.

It is generally common knowledge that there were mistakes made in the past pertaining to planning in the "1950s". It's something we have to live with, and it is NOT something we should be trying to completely block off. There's a reason why our streets are congested..because people use them. creating pedestrian malls and transit malls downtown are all nice and pretty, but unless the GO Train or subway or buses improve in the suburbs, congestion downtown will not get ANY better, regardless of transit improvements within the downtown core.

The only benefit we can really take from this, is that people living downtown won't be affected by the congestion, if the transit improvements are made I guess.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Really? No choice!

Typical urbanite...tisk...if only everyone had the "choice" of living downtown where access to services and everything was easier. The reality is that the downtown is where (still) a large majority of jobs are located. The downtown isn't some neighbourhood community garden that needs protecting from outsiders, it is, and should be, used by ALL people. Facilitating, what seems to be, the only efficient and accessible method for suburbanites to get downtown is not wrong, especially when there is no plan to provide any other method, other than driving, to get downtown.

It is generally common knowledge that there were mistakes made in the past pertaining to planning in the "1950s". It's something we have to live with, and it is NOT something we should be trying to completely block off. There's a reason why our streets are congested..because people use them. creating pedestrian malls and transit malls downtown are all nice and pretty, but unless the GO Train or subway or buses improve in the suburbs, congestion downtown will not get ANY better, regardless of transit improvements within the downtown core.

The only benefit we can really take from this, is that people living downtown won't be affected by the congestion, if the transit improvements are made I guess.

So the poor suburbanites didn't have a choice in where they live? Really? How so exactly? Where you choose to live reflects your 'chosen' lifestyle.

I've had enough conversations with enough suburbanites to know that they'll defend the car and big houses and malls, etc. to no ends! So how is it not their choice? In fact, the 'choice' card is precisely what they use against me! They'll tell me I'm attacking their 'choices'! And then I try to explain how their choses lead to pollution, congestion, etc. and it goes round and round in circles...

...but then they cry when what they themselves created (i.e. car dependancy) turns around and bites them in the ass (i.e. rising gas prices, pollution and congestion and no time).

And when given an oppoprtunity to change that, they'll vote for someone who promises to maintain their precious choices.

Who stopped them from voting for a mayor who supports sustainable transportation instead of supporting someone who espouses the 'war on the car' nonsense. Wouldn't that give them an alternative that you say doesn't currently exist? And watch in a few months, they'll support another right-winged wack who'll tell us we can't afford better transit, and then the cycle will continue.

Take responsibility for your choices...nobody's stopping any suburbanite from moving closer to where they work (yes, this might require some downsizing...oh nooooo!). No one's stopping them from buying a smaller car (until they move closer to a subway line). No one's stopping them from opening their eyes and refusing to buy into the suburban/American crap, which is costing all of us...and no one's stopping them to vote for a pro-transit anti-sprawl candidate...(I can go on, but why labour it...I think you get the point).

...so please...spare me the 'poor' suburbanite crap.

And by the way, as for adding more parking downtown to further facilitate the car oriented transport, I further like Vancouver's position, where they say,

"More cars and more space for parking would hamper the efficient functioning of the Downtown and result in congestion in surrounding Downtown neighbourhoods. In the future travel to and within the Downtown will rely more on transit, walking and biking".

Notice the focus on 'not' rewarding bad choices (i.e. facilitating suburbanites to drive and park downtown).

Facilitating, what seems to be, the only efficient and accessible method for suburbanites to get downtown is not wrong

Ummmm...have you not heard of the GoTrains? If they don't like the INfrequency, then maybe they can increase their densities to justify more frequency, but of course that would violate the suburban 'low density' choice, wouldn't it?

 

[Danielinthecity]

I'm not against cars. I think the money should be spent on things such as a Legion Rd underpass and Express and Collectors between 427 and 409. Filling in missing links makes sense. The reality, whether or not suburbanites can handle it, is that there isn't vast empty parking lots and lanes of downtown streets waiting for them with untapped capacity. You can build a 20 lane stacked Gardiner downtown and it simply will not work because there is nowhere for these people to go. The off ramps would simply back up and kill the flow of the Gardiner. The only way to move more people around downtown are to move them in vehicles which either don't take up space parking or take up very little space, and which can result in greater carrying capacity of existing roadways in people terms. Downtown Toronto doesn't have six lane streets everywhere, and most of its blocks don't have streets spaced 250ft apart anymore (developments in the past got rid of that street grid). We need to realize this and find the way to move more people on those corridors, not more cars. Transit is the only option. Focusing on ways to move cars only makes streets less hospitable while at the same time not solving the problem.

That said, I'm not sure the cart should be put before the horse. A network of separated bike lanes should be built without putting them on primary surface routes first, only putting them on primary routes to fill in network gaps. It doesn't make sense to try to make transit coverts out of people when the transit system is at maximum capacity as well. Removing traffic lanes before providing an transit alternative with significant capacity to spare makes no sense.

I know you're not, Enviro...neither am I actually in the appropriate application...I wouldn't want to be rushed to the hospital waiting for a bus...

And I wouldn't expect a farmer to be penalized b/c in his/her case they 'really' don't have a 'reasonable' choice to get around, and so forth. And I agree with your proposals about transit first and then implementing a 'transit' convert program...I wouldn't penalize people for driving...I'd give them alternative choices (but that would cost money, which means taxes would have to be raised and I'd never get voted in), but I certainly wouldn't 'facilitate' a bad choice either.