[Mapleson]

And why does it fall on Toronto and the TTC to make downtown more accessible?

Because it's downtown Toronto and not downtown Vaughn.

What are the other municipalities in the GTA and the province doing to help with this issue?

They are providing $8.2 billion for transit in Toronto, we chose 1 LRT subway instead of 3 surface LRTs. I'd have to dig through the numbers, but the TTC gets over $250 million in operating and capital funding from the province.

Toronto's concern should (be) for it's residents not for someone in Vaughan to come into the city easier.

Toronto's concern for its residents also helps Vaughan residents. People that live in the former metro-Toronto still work downtown. When people can't get to work because there's congestion, work looks for somewhere less congested.

Transit city provided a viable solution though it didn't go far enough without the DRL.

Transit City was underfunded as it was. 7 LRT lines got broken down into two phases and the count in phase one kept slipping until we had 3 left for mostly political reasons.

In Vancouver all the municipalities agreed to a 1 cent gas tax to fund transit. In Montreal they just added the same car registration we removed and on top of that the province adds another car registration fee for everyone in the province to fund transit. Would the other GTA communities or province do this?

BC and Quebec are both much more liberal than Ontario atm. I doubt the Ontario Conservatives would bring in a car tax or raise the gas tax, which pushes us back to 2015. If traffic keeps getting worse, it might actually be an election issue.

There seems to be a misunderstanding that I want to ‘punish’ drivers b/c I don’t believe in facilitating driving. NOT wanting to make driving easier does not mean wanting to punish drivers. No where in any of my posts will you find that. I simply want the ‘emphasis’ to be switched from a car-oriented focus to a ‘transit-oriented’ focus, both in terms of transportation AND land-use planning as the MAIN way to relieve congestion and facilitate mobility.

Actually, by not wanting to 'make driving easier' means by de facto you are punishing drivers. By not optimizing our road space more people have to wait longer, regardless of the mix used to optimize the space.

I’d give them alternative choices

The discussion is in the context of Ford’s plan…which I think is placing the emphasis in the wrong place (i.e. making driving easier (which again let me reiterate does NOT automatically mean making it harder)). In fact, the byproduct of focusing on transit (instead of driving) is that driving would in fact become easier as fewer drivers mean less congestion. I also said that in one of my first posts on the subject. So how could I be punishing drivers when I support plans to build MORE transit which’ll mean more road capacity for those that continue to ‘have to’ drive?

It's the general assumption that there is supressed demand for our road space and combined with our growing population and economic prospertity we will not have less congestion, only a smaller increase in it. The GTA gains 100,000 people a year and there are 19-21 million annual overnight- or day-trips by Canadians to Toronto; that's 57,000 trips per day. That's as much visiting traffic as most Ontario cities generate locally.

I think the focus/emphasis/priority (whatever you want to call it) of any transportation strategy should be on transit, NOT on driving.



And that means giving everyone – including suburbanites – an ALTERNATIVE to the car, not make car driving the ‘preferred’ or ‘easiest’ option…THAT was the old 1950’s way of doing things and THAT’S what I’m against. I think we need to address the problems caused by sprawl with a NEW approach and a NEW focus.

That has been the shift we've seen under McGinty. We have Metrolinx to develop regional transit, billions of dollars for transit expansion, and the Places to Grow Act. Unfortunately, we've used our political window and now must wait (7 years on average) for the poltical winds to shift back from minimalist conservation to progressive expansion. Our personal opinions don't matter in the public perception of their "preferred" mode of transport. People take the car when they must, because it's easier. No matter how expansive the transit network and how close the headways, there will always be a sizable portion of journeys that it won't support. Grocery shopping is a prime example, where people find it easier to take a private vehicle once a week rather than walking daily. The popularity of Costco is another indicator that some portion of society still embraces the 1950 style of urban living. Just because we don't agree with them, doesn't make them wrong, but forcing our design opinions on them is saying their livestyle choice is no longer acceptable.

Full seats/routes DO subsidize empty routes. If you owned a private bus company, would you really run half-empty buses as often as full buses, especially if those half-empty ones had to travel further, thus consuming more fuel and labour costs, AND increase your operating/maintenance costs? I would hope you wouldn't for the sake of your business. It's the same reason why Mulroney discontinued unprofitable trunk lines with via rail many years ago, b/c the main rail corridors which ran closer to capacity subsidized those that did not. As he said, "Use it or lose it".

VIA Rail was formed to preserve the unprofitable passenger rail service from CP and CN. Mulroney also privatized CP and Petro-Canada that used to bring in profits. Look at rural Britain for the consequences of full privatization of transit: overcompetition for trunk routes (as these passengers tend to transfer) and underservice of outlying areas. We are constrained by costs for the total network provided and unless we have full-cost recovery fares, every expansion means more public subsidy. When the municipal, provincial, and federal governments are all running deficits, you have to do the best with what you have and hope you don't get less next year.

Coruscanti Cognoscente, when you say that you're forced to drive and that you'd love to see the roads downtown improved too, would you not love to never have to worry about driving at all cause you could get anywhere in the region anytime? THAT'S my vision...and that vision will never happen if we don't change how we think about moving around...i.e. again...I know I'm a broken record, but it has to be TRANSIT focussed.

I work as a transportation engineer at a consulting firm. Ironically, most of my site visits for transit improvement projects require me to drive parallel to transit lines (for example, photographing road-rail intersections for future grade seperation). Speed, comfort, cost, and flexibility are the areas that transit has to outperform private transport. Your vision might happen in our lifetime (next 50 years), but it won't get done in the next two decades.

 

[BMO]

There seems to be a misunderstanding that I want to ‘punish’ drivers b/c I don’t believe in facilitating driving. NOT wanting to make driving easier does not mean wanting to punish drivers. No where in any of my posts will you find that. I simply want the ‘emphasis’ to be switched from a car-oriented focus to a ‘transit-oriented’ focus, both in terms of transportation AND land-use planning as the MAIN way to relieve congestion and facilitate mobility.

I don't have a problem with shifting focus on transit solutions to congestion, I misunderstood you, because I was under the impression that you were advocating making it harder for drivers to get into the city intentionally to boost transit ridership.

I agree that there should be a shift between a car-oriented focus to a transit-oriented focus, but it should be done in a smart and sensible manner. People naturally oppose change. Deciding to tear down all the highways one day without prepping and slowly leaning people off the car, will not work as a solution. This is why my stance on suddenly taking away a bunch of road capacity downtown would not work.

BMO, you wrote, “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”

If you read one of my posts (#60 to be exact), you’d see where I wrote, “I wouldn’t penalize driving…I’d give then alternative choices…”…

…so when I write, “I’d give them alternative choices…”, I mean exactly that. So if I had a magic want (or if Miller’s plan wasn’t ruined), you and all ‘inner’ 416 suburbanites WOULD have a viable alternative.

I don't have a problem with this, this was never what my argument was. My argument was that without these yet to be realized transit expansions in the burbs, private automobile traffic will still clog downtown streets regardless of transit improvements in the downtown core. I think we can both agree on this.

The discussion is in the context of Ford’s plan…which I think is placing the emphasis in the wrong place (i.e. making driving easier (which again let me reiterate does NOT automatically mean making it harder)). In fact, the byproduct of focusing on transit (instead of driving) is that driving would in fact become easier as fewer drivers mean less congestion. I also said that in one of my first posts on the subject. So how could I be punishing drivers when I support plans to build MORE transit which’ll mean more road capacity for those that continue to ‘have to’ drive?

I think the focus/emphasis/priority (whatever you want to call it) of any transportation strategy should be on transit, NOT on driving.

And that means giving everyone – including suburbanites – an ALTERNATIVE to the car, not make car driving the ‘preferred’ or ‘easiest’ option…THAT was the old 1950’s way of doing things and THAT’S what I’m against. I think we need to address the problems caused by sprawl with a NEW approach and a NEW focus.

Once again taking capacity away from drivers to improve transit capacity, while theoretically makes sense that it would reduce congestion and improve driving for motorists, in the real world situation at hand it would not reduce congestion. It may address overcrowding on existing transit lines, and improve their commute, but it will NOT reduce congestion.

Taking the situation at hand, if I drive from finch and hwy 400. I'm still going to drive downtown even if the streetcar downtown gets its own ROW or even if bike lanes are added on the streets. The only difference is while the commute is improved for transit riders, and cyclists; it effectively has been worsened (less road capacity than currently) for motorists. This would only add to the congestion downtown. 500 cars coming from the north-east will still try to fit on one lane street as opposed to a previous two-lanes.

There's quite a big distinction between congestion within the transit system (overcrowding) and traffic congestion.

BMO, 2.6 mil are in what you call Toronto proper.
Full seats/routes DO subsidize empty routes. If you owned a private bus company, would you really run half-empty buses as often as full buses, especially if those half-empty ones had to travel further, thus consuming more fuel and labour costs, AND increase your operating/maintenance costs? I would hope you wouldn't for the sake of your business. It's the same reason why Mulroney discontinued unprofitable trunk lines with via rail many years ago, b/c the main rail corridors which ran closer to capacity subsidized those that did not. As he said, "Use it or lose it".

With the exception of some streetcar routes, and obviously the subway lines. Suburban bus routes are generally much busier and overcrowded than downtown bus routes. To say that the system subsidizes suburban routes is false, because the majority of the people traveling on the subways are funneled on by bus routes coming from the suburbs. A filled bus in the suburbs, no matter how successful it is, will not turn a profit. You're argument is that suburban routes are subsidized by the rest of the system isn't a fair comparison, because a majority of people taking the bus transfer for free onto the subway, so the same fare gets split to pay for All the lines. It's easy to look at subway stops downtown that have large boardings and think that people are subsidizing suburban routes, but in reality a large proportion of downtown transit users, are in fact people who also use the suburban routes. They get concentrated into the core, then afterwards split across all-over Toronto. If that makes any sense how I described it?

I'd even go a step further to say that people in the downtown core have the ability to drive, take transit, taxi, walk or cycle to amenities and services downtown, whereas in the suburbs it's a clear choice between either the bus or the car. On the grand scheme of modal split probably isn't in favour of transit in the suburbs, but that modal split isn't split 5 ways like downtown.

BMO? What exactly do you mean by this?

"The key to tackling congestion is providing better and more effective transit in the suburbs so that those people don't go downtown". Are you suggesting that the answer is DEcentralization of economic activities?

I meant so that those people don't drive downtown, I'm a bit dyslexic so I mix up the words and often omit words when I type.

 

[Thanos]

Because it's downtown Toronto and not downtown Vaughn.

Again, Toronto's concern is for it's residents well being and not that of Vaughan. Downtown streets are just fine. The issue is getting those drivers to use transit. With Transit City the vast majority of Torontonians would have better access to the jobs downtown. It was not a perfect plan but it addressed the issue. If someone in Vaughan finds it's taking too long to commute he can move or look for a new job. No one forced him/her to locate there. The 905 is fairly healthy in the employment area.

They are providing $8.2 billion for transit in Toronto, we chose 1 LRT subway instead of 3 surface LRTs. I'd have to dig through the numbers, but the TTC gets over $250 million in operating and capital funding from the province.

Yes, the city could've done more but I'm referring to long term funding. Ontario is way behind the times. Can you provide any evidence that the TTC gets any operating funding from the province? I've yet to read any report that confirms this.

Toronto's concern for its residents also helps Vaughan residents. People that live in the former metro-Toronto still work downtown. When people can't get to work because there's congestion, work looks for somewhere less congested.

Not when that means the residents of Toronto are the only ones paying for it. And this whole "when people can't get to work because there's congestion, work looks for somewhere less congested" is nothing more than an old wives tale. Several companies in NA are moving suburban offices to the city core. If Vaughan and the 905 communities are willing to work with Toronto to improve transit then let's make a comprehensive plan regarding the roads. Until then Toronto should not change it's plans to cater to the 905.

Transit City was underfunded as it was. 7 LRT lines got broken down into two phases and the count in phase one kept slipping until we had 3 left for mostly political reasons.

I'm not arguing with you. I stated that transit city was not perfect. I can't figure out why you even bothered with this statement.

BC and Quebec are both much more liberal than Ontario atm. I doubt the Ontario Conservatives would bring in a car tax or raise the gas tax, which pushes us back to 2015. If traffic keeps getting worse, it might actually be an election issue.

Last i checked the Liberals were in power. As long as the province and the 905 communities are unwilling to solve this issue, Toronto can only do so much. It's a region issue not a downtown.

 

[JoeParez]

Again, Toronto's concern is for it's residents well being and not that of Vaughan. Downtown streets are just fine. The issue is getting those drivers to use transit. With Transit City the vast majority of Torontonians would have better access to the jobs downtown. It was not a perfect plan but it addressed the issue. If someone in Vaughan finds it's taking too long to commute he can move or look for a new job. No one forced him/her to locate there. The 905 is fairly healthy in the employment area.

You're telling me that I would have to quit my job or find different work because I drive into the city? Come on, listen to how silly that sounds.
You honestly sound like an old man yell "Hey kids, get off my lawn!"

"Hey 905ers, get out of my town with your cars! Yuck! Phooey!"


For about the one millionth time; stop pandering Toronto's issues on the surrounding areas.
Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham and Durham have all made strides to improve transit in their region -- notice how there was no subway expansion on the horizon UNTIL Vaughan and the province chimed in and helped fund and maintain a Spadina extension. If the city and the TTC cared so much about the issues with transportation downtown; they wouldn't have agreed to a Spadina extension.

Seriously, Toronto stepped on it's own toes.

I feel like I write the same things over and over.
As if nobody in Toronto or even downtown, drive cars -- I could swear that when I walk in the residential areas of Parkdale and High Park and Little Italy that I see cars all over the place.

Oh yeah, no.. those people MUST be from the 905, right?

 

[Mapleson]

Again, Toronto's concern is for it's residents well being and not that of Vaughan. Downtown streets are just fine. The issue is getting those drivers to use transit. With Transit City the vast majority of Torontonians would have better access to the jobs downtown. It was not a perfect plan but it addressed the issue. If someone in Vaughan finds it's taking too long to commute he can move or look for a new job. No one forced him/her to locate there. The 905 is fairly healthy in the employment area.

You seem to have a very idealistic view of labour fluidity and transportation issues. I take it that you are unattached and never had issues moving for work and finding somewhere both convienient and affordable? It's the individual's choice how far they are willing to travel for employment. As more people move to the GTA, more people will be willing to travel for longer to a matching job opertunity. Unless you are limited how far someone can commute by law, there will always be demand for our road space.

Yes, the city could've done more but I'm referring to long term funding. Ontario is way behind the times.

Long-term we are behind the ball? Yes, we lost most of the 90s to Conservative cost-cutting under Mike Harris. He went as far to fill in the started Eglinton Subway. We've had 7 years now with $62 billion spent on infrastructure projects. There is only so much we can do in a given timeframe with limited funds.

Can you provide any evidence that the TTC gets any operating funding from the province? I've yet to read any report that confirms this.

You aren't too familiar with the history of the TTC are you? $91.6m of the $160.6m of the Gax Tax was allocated to the 2010 Operating Budget.

Steve Munro Post
Legal Report

Not when that means the residents of Toronto are the only ones paying for it. And this whole "when people can't get to work because there's congestion, work looks for somewhere less congested" is nothing more than an old wives tale. Several companies in NA are moving suburban offices to the city core.

Do you have any factual basis for the statement congestion does not impact employers location decisions? Besides generalized nonlocalized antidotal oberservations?

If Vaughan and the 905 communities are willing to work with Toronto to improve transit then let's make a comprehensive plan regarding the roads. Until then Toronto should not change it's plans to cater to the 905.

What does Vaughan et al. have to do with Toronto looking at the best way to use Toronto's roads? Why are you assuming it's "to cater to the 905" and not to Toronto residents?

I'm not arguing with you. I stated that transit city was not perfect. I can't figure out why you even bothered with this statement.

I was highlighting our fincial status. You were suggesting that Transit City didn't go far enough because it didn't include a downtown relief subway, while I suggested the fincial realities were that Transit City outstripped funding.

Last i checked the Liberals were in power. As long as the province and the 905 communities are unwilling to solve this issue, Toronto can only do so much. It's a region issue not a downtown.

Between here and October the Liberals are lame ducks. Nevertheless, they did made headways over the last 7-8 years to solve the urban sprawl and integrate regional transportation.

Your own arguements work against you here. If Toronto's concern is for Toronto residents, it should be equally true that Vaughan's concern is Vaughan residents and being willing to solve downtown Toronto congestion, shouldn't be it's concern.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Personally I don't drive downtown if I don't have to. Unfortunately GO service ends (on the Milton line) at 1:20 from Monday to Saturday, which is frankly too early. Therefore I'm forced to drive, as much as I'd prefer to take the GO and not worry about parking downtown.

I'd love to see more GO service, but I'd love to see the roads downtown improved too. I'm all for separated bike lanes. Much better than how bikes operate downtown now.

PS Mississauga Transit isn't an option either in case anyone was wondering. Haven't checked what time it ends, but it's earlier than GO.

I see this so-called "study" nothing more than coming up with short-term solutions. They should come up with long-term solutions and look at what is happening not just in Toronto nor Canada nor the United States. It is not enough to look for solutions in 3 years time, nor in 5 years nor 10 years. The study should be looking at the next generation of people and how they will be moving around without cheap gasoline or diesel fuel. Unfortunately, the mayor is stuck in the 1960's and the 20th century. Think for the 21st century and the road ahead without cheap fossil fuels. That includes bicycles, light rail, and streetcars and not single-occupant cars.

 

[Thanos]

You're telling me that I would have to quit my job or find different work because I drive into the city? Come on, listen to how silly that sounds.
You honestly sound like an old man yell "Hey kids, get off my lawn!"

"Hey 905ers, get out of my town with your cars! Yuck! Phooey!"

If you don't like something then change it. Don't be one of those armchair quarterbacks that screams how much something sucks and isn't willing to do anything about it. And I'm the one that sounds like an old man? If only you can open your mind and look at things differently. Blaming the city because it takes too long to go somewhere with your car. Cry me a river old man.

For about the one millionth time; stop pandering Toronto's issues on the surrounding areas.
Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham and Durham have all made strides to improve transit in their region -- notice how there was no subway expansion on the horizon UNTIL Vaughan and the province chimed in and helped fund and maintain a Spadina extension. If the city and the TTC cared so much about the issues with transportation downtown; they wouldn't have agreed to a Spadina extension.

For the millionth time: IT'S NOT A TORONTO ISSUE. IT'S A REGIONAL ISSUE. They all need to cooperate and work together. Something that is happening in the rest of Canada.
And whatever transit improvements that Vaughan, Mississauga and the rest have done has been negated by their continuous sprawl.
And why should there be a subway extension to the suburbs that have no density before a DRL? Why are other cities using LRT and regional trains for the suburbs while we have to use the most expensive form of transit. Subways do not belong in the suburbs.

Seriously, Toronto stepped on it's own toes.

Seriously the suburbs have been taking a free ride.

I feel like I write the same things over and over.
As if nobody in Toronto or even downtown, drive cars -- I could swear that when I walk in the residential areas of Parkdale and High Park and Little Italy that I see cars all over the place.

Oh yeah, no.. those people MUST be from the 905, right?

Wow you really don't get it do you? Cars will never go away. You'll never hear me argue that they will.
If the entire region and province makes a commitment on transit then you will see the roads less congested.
There will always be traffic but if everyone made an effort we would be able to reduce it to more acceptable levels.

 

[Thanos]

You seem to have a very idealistic view of labour fluidity and transportation issues. I take it that you are unattached and never had issues moving for work and finding somewhere both convienient and affordable? It's the individual's choice how far they are willing to travel for employment. As more people move to the GTA, more people will be willing to travel for longer to a matching job opertunity. Unless you are limited how far someone can commute by law, there will always be demand for our road space.

Again, i'm not arguing against the part in bold. And if you must know i am attached and have moved on 3 occasions for better opportunities and as recently as a few months ago when i came to Toronto. The argument i'm trying to make is by reducing the demand for our road space by providing a more comprehensive transit plan for the whole region. Any road adjustments should be solely for the purpose of transit (ie: dedicated bus lanes, LRT, etc.)

Long-term we are behind the ball? Yes, we lost most of the 90s to Conservative cost-cutting under Mike Harris. He went as far to fill in the started Eglinton Subway. We've had 7 years now with $62 billion spent on infrastructure projects. There is only so much we can do in a given timeframe with limited funds.

Again, i never argued against this. However, it seems that people didn't learn their lesson from the Harris days and now we have Ford. I also barely hear any discussion in the provincial elections regarding long term transit funding. I only hear people complaining about taxes and fees.

Do you have any factual basis for the statement congestion does not impact employers location decisions? Besides generalized nonlocalized antidotal oberservations?

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...special-report-corporate-campuses-in-twilight
Do some of your own research. A quick look up on google shows dozens of articles regarding companies in major US markets leaving the burbs to move back downtown. LA has far worse traffic then Toronto can even begin to imagine and corporations are starting to relocate to more central locations.

Your own arguements work against you here. If Toronto's concern is for Toronto residents, it should be equally true that Vaughan's concern is Vaughan residents and being willing to solve downtown Toronto congestion, shouldn't be it's concern.

My argument is for all municipalities to sit together and come up with a more sustainable source of funding for the WHOLE REGION. It's true that saying Toronto's concern should be on it's own residents is not the right way of solving this issue. This is what i'm getting at: the responsibility does not fall solely on the city of Toronto.

 

[Danielinthecity]

I don't have a problem with shifting focus on transit solutions to congestion, I misunderstood you, because I was under the impression that you were advocating making it harder for drivers to get into the city intentionally to boost transit ridership.

I agree that there should be a shift between a car-oriented focus to a transit-oriented focus, but it should be done in a smart and sensible manner. People naturally oppose change. Deciding to tear down all the highways one day without prepping and slowly leaning people off the car, will not work as a solution. This is why my stance on suddenly taking away a bunch of road capacity downtown would not work.

I don't disagree with you...I never said I was in favour of either (1) punishing drivers or (2) of reducing capacity. I'm not...especially when a viable alternative isn't given. And I never said anything about tearing down highways, so I'm not sure why you're saying that?? I do believe that though that by focussing our investments on transit instead of roads, capacity WOULD increase on the existing roads simply b/c more transit means less cars which means more space and less congestion for those people that still have to drive.

I don't have a problem with this, this was never what my argument was. My argument was that without these yet to be realized transit expansions in the burbs, private automobile traffic will still clog downtown streets regardless of transit improvements in the downtown core. I think we can both agree on this.

Yes, we can agree on this...I believe in expansion EVERYWHERE, but I also believe the type of expansion should fit the urban model.

Once again taking capacity away from drivers to improve transit capacity, while theoretically makes sense that it would reduce congestion and improve driving for motorists, in the real world situation at hand it would not reduce congestion. It may address overcrowding on existing transit lines, and improve their commute, but it will NOT reduce congestion.

And once again, I never said anything about taking away capacity from drivers...I just don't believe that increasing road capacity is the answer.

Taking the situation at hand, if I drive from finch and hwy 400. I'm still going to drive downtown even if the streetcar downtown gets its own ROW or even if bike lanes are added on the streets. The only difference is while the commute is improved for transit riders, and cyclists; it effectively has been worsened (less road capacity than currently) for motorists. This would only add to the congestion downtown. 500 cars coming from the north-east will still try to fit on one lane street as opposed to a previous two-lanes.

My approach - like Transit City - would make it easier for you to go ALL THE WAY downtown without having to drive. Again, it's a focus on transit, and it's a region-wide focus.

I'd even go a step further to say that people in the downtown core have the ability to drive, take transit, taxi, walk or cycle to amenities and services downtown, whereas in the suburbs it's a clear choice between either the bus or the car. On the grand scheme of modal split probably isn't in favour of transit in the suburbs, but that modal split isn't split 5 ways like downtown.

As for our debate about transit subsidies, you make some interesting points...but I still maintain that transit routes that serve high density urban places do subsidize the other parts of the system that serve lower density places. It's all about costs versus revenue.

But I'm too busy right now though to thoroughly debate it, so if you're patient - and you even want - we can revisit that in the future. But I think you're partially agreeing when you mention the modal split b/c think you're saying that higher density places have higher transit usage. If you're saying that, you're right. Which is part of my arguement about the subsidy part, but as I said for another time. If you're not saying that, please clarify.

And since many have automatically taken my support of focussing on TRANSIT instead of facilitating driving to mean that I want to punish drivers, here's an interesting article via my LinkIn account that relates directly to 'punishing' drivers and the environment and congestion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Danielinthecity]

I feel like I write the same things over and over.
As if nobody in Toronto or even downtown, drive cars -- I could swear that when I walk in the residential areas of Parkdale and High Park and Little Italy that I see cars all over the place.

Oh yeah, no.. those people MUST be from the 905, right?

Wow you really don't get it do you? Cars will never go away. You'll never hear me argue that they will.
If the entire region and province makes a commitment on transit then you will see the roads less congested.
There will always be traffic but if everyone made an effort we would be able to reduce it to more acceptable levels.

Thanos, don't sweat it...it's typical when proposing something that's viewed as a threat to a person's way of life to respond by REframing the arguement in a way that has NOTHING to do with what you're proposing in the first place. I'm tiring of having to defend things I never said, or even when I defend it and say I never said that to be then told that it 'defacto' meant that...like they know what I really mean...

I know you never said what they allege you said...and I'm sure reasonable people can see that. And don't worry...it won't be people like us that'll be punishing motorists, it'll happen anyway through rising prices.

I remember 11 years ago almost to the day being at a garage...gas was $0.499/litre. (It happened to be a significant time if you're wondering why I remember that AND the price). Anyhow, today its' something like $1.32...that's an almost 300% increase in that time frame and back then I didn't hear people talking about gas prices or peak oil or congestion or the environment or the rise of India and China as much. Given the exponential rise of the east, I bet that the rise in the fuel costs in the next 10 years will be even more drastic.

So the punishment will come from forces beyond most of our control. What saddens me is that rather than see this coming and take steps to prepare ourselves for it (i.e. FOCUS on transit, NOT on facilitating driving), these people who continue to see nothing wrong with making driving easier will find themselves in some pretty tough times, and then we'll all be looking back and asking 'why'.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Actually, by not wanting to 'make driving easier' means by de facto you are punishing drivers.

NO it doesn't mean that. That's ludicrous. Does not wanting to make eating junkfood easier mean I'm defacto punishing fat kids?

Our personal opinions don't matter in the public perception of their "preferred" mode of transport. People take the car when they must, because it's easier. No matter how expansive the transit network and how close the headways, there will always be a sizable portion of journeys that it won't support. Grocery shopping is a prime example, where people find it easier to take a private vehicle once a week rather than walking daily. The popularity of Costco is another indicator that some portion of society still embraces the 1950 style of urban living. Just because we don't agree with them, doesn't make them wrong, but forcing our design opinions on them is saying their livestyle choice is no longer acceptable.

So if people take their car cause it's easier, why not help them with alternatives that are JUST as easy? Why just perpetuate something we know is not good for the environement? And by the way, I DO think their lifestyle choice is no longer acceptable and that's why I'd like to encourage them to change it by giving them alternatives, and over time even the suburbs will densify and become more urban.

Remember our lifestyle choices all have impacts. There's a difference between intent and impace. I don't think most people INTEND to harm the environment or be part of the congestion problem, but the reality is that they are...

...the question we should be asking ourselves is why is there pollution, congestion, etc? Who's responsible for it if not us! And what can we do not that's different than what we've BEEN doing that's gotten us into this mess in the first place (i.e. STOP 1950's style planning AROUND the car, and instead focus on pedestrain oriented development and transit expansion).

To do nothing just b/c some people don't like it is irresponsible.

 

[JoeParez]

@Thanos -- sorry my friend, was a little out of line this afternoon (work ).

Will respond later.

 

[Thanos]

Don't worry daniel i don't take anything personal. I'm a montrealer living in Toronto, i've gotten enough jabs from friends back home lol.

Here's an interesting article about what's taking place in europe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

"While American cities are synchronizing green lights to improve traffic flow and offering apps to help drivers find parking, many European cities are doing the opposite: creating environments openly hostile to cars. The methods vary, but the mission is clear — to make car use expensive and just plain miserable enough to tilt drivers toward more environmentally friendly modes of transportation."

Anyways, i didn't mean to offend Joe nor Mapleson with any of my comments.
The issue i have with this whole transit debate is that neither Toronto nor the surrounding municipalities seem to be willing to do anything to solve this.

 

[Thanos]

Here's another article many of you would find interesting.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/110715/toronto-traffic-public-transportation-cars

"Toronto’s population is growing at near Asian rates, but infrastructure is being built to support this population growth at less than North American rates†— a damning thought indeed when compared to what Asian and European countries invest in infrastructure."

 

[Dan416]

My wifes parents live a 5 minute walk north of Cooksville station. There is bus service when the train stops running. Also After our dates, I would often take the mississauga bus to Islington and subway it downtown. In my mind those dates were pretty late. Really though how much bus service can you expect to be 24hrs? Even in Toronto thats difficult to maintain. Although I always wished the BLUE LINE busses could all become LRT.

As I said, GO service ends at 1:20 am Monday-Saturday. It is, like all trips on the Milton line outside of the 7 trains in in the morning, 7 trains out in the evening, on a bus. The local buses near my house stop running even earlier than that. I could drive all the way to Kipling, and then take a blue line bus to Kipling after, but Kipling just feels so far away, out of the way, inconvenient, and it involves taking the TTC--which I consider a pain in the arse because you need cash or a token, whereas at the GO station I just pay by credit card (and in the near future by Presto).

In general though, if my destination is downtown, I'm not going to take TTC. It just takes too long.