News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

green22: I understand your points on perhaps over estimating the actual impact that transit growth in the 905 areas actually has on the region as a whole. There is really no question that most of these places are still car dependant suburbs which may have made strong percentage gains in terms of growth, but in regards to volume, still have a long ways to go.

Another points as well. The first is that New York is a city unto itself. New York is more likely to follow the growth patterns of Paris, London or Tokyo than any other North American city. Saying that Toronto is inferior to New York really has no weight given that the two cities are hardly comparable. Yes, Toronto had suffered decline over that 14 year period. But, cities see changes happen all the time in a various sectors of society. Crime, poverty, drug use, car use, transit use, waste produced, tax revenues, social service costs, health care costs, and on and on. Am I suggesting that we should take a laissez faire attitude towards transit and brush it all off as just an aberation that will find its own solutions? No. But here is another point to keep in mind as well.

In 2007 it will have been 50 years sign Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highways Act into law and set into motion a project that has changed North America in radical ways that few inventions or projects ever have or ever will. It will have been 50 years since one of the central elements to the creation of automobile city begun. 50 years of wild expansion fulled by post war prosperity, cheap oil, and open spaces. Take a look at Toronto, the 905, or any city in Ontario. The car has reshaped them. Wholly 50% of the GTA, all of the 905 region, is based solely around the car. Add in the suburban regions of around Toronto and it becomes very clear that city forms able to support viable means of transportation other than the car are unquestionablely in the minority.

If that doesnt offer enough of an understanding of the cars impact lets also consider other factors. One of the issues which still amazes me in the fact that it has only just recently started to be discussed by a small number of people are parking regulations. The notion that in an urban areas such as Toronto there should be a minimum on parking instead of a maximum still stresses me out a great deal. Of course there is continued highway expansion, city streets with a maximum of accomodation for cars and a minimum for transit and pedestrians. And that anti urban uses for city space such as drive thru's still seem to be seriously proposed in our cities is another one that I am somewhat baffled by.

Although I would think this should be obvious too most, still, I wanted to too illustrate that while one could look at growth in Toronto, or other Canadian cities today, and say that all is peachy keen, the shift towards denser, more urbain growth is only a very, very recent trend at the level we are now seeing. But for the last 6 decades the car has been king, and will still be king for a long, long time. The explosive suburban growth may just now, and that is still yet to be seen, but could well be plateauing or declining now. But its effects are long reaching.

Transit, along with the environment, wastelines, and good urbanism were all victims of the past 6 decades. When I see the numbers from any Canadian city I view it in this context. When you consider just how much damage could have been caused to Toronto, and how much the TTC could have declined by looking at the examples of many American cities and their experiences, things could have been a lot worse.

Toronto, or any Canadian city, cant claim to have great transit, but, its ok, and most cities are at least in a position now where expansion and growth are now possible and realistic, even if at a very Canadian pace.
 
transit is not a social service
Click to expand...
Actually, I agree.

GO Transit should not be responsible for handling out social money. They should be resposible for running reliable transit services.

Another agency should be responsible for selling (or handing out) discount transit passes to the people who require it.

Take the $250M operational subsidy (TTC and Go Transit) and distribute it amongst the people who do have difficulties paying transit fares, and you could probably bring monthly passes to about 75% discounted -- under 50% of the current rates.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but TTC ridership in the past few years is now approaching the record level set in the late 1980s, hence all this concern about overcrowding. GO transit is seeing constant ridership increases also. So what, exactly, is the problem here?
 
The problem is that Toronto now has lower market share of transit then it did in 1989.

Transit ridership is rebounding, and yes GO has always had ridership increases for the most part.

But while ridership is now growing on TTC, we also have more people living in Toronto. Meaning that on average people are not using transit as much.

Our market share is down, per capita ridership is down, etc.

Toronto was one of the only metropolitan regions in North America that actually saw transit use grow after 1950. Yes our transit was popular.
So popular that in 1989, somewhere like 45% of Metropolitan Toronto residents took the TTC to work. No other Metropolitan area in North America could claim that ridership. Remembering that most the TTC service area is suburban, that stat is something to be proud of. That was European level ridership.
Since then its declined.

Our ridership is going up, but it should be higher now then 1989, and its not. Market share is going down down down, as less people use TTC on a regular basis.

When my mom and dad moved to our neighbourhood, a one car family was not unusual. Eventhough my neighbours made good livings, etc, they used one car, and the TTC for the remainder of the trips.

Infact my mom was one of the only wifes on the street to have a car(my parents had two cars).

Now adays you don't see that. Everyone has a car.

The TTC is not part of the culture of the Metro Region anymore like it use to be. And thats the problem.

We had something good going there. Before 1989, something like 80% of all office buildings in the Greater Toronto where built in downtown Toronto or next to a TTC subway station.
You don't see that happening anymore, thanks to decentralization.

We where a region that was the envy of North America, a model transit region.

To find those stats I listed above you gotta go read old reports on the TTC at the library and on the internet. I don't feel like searching for all the articles now. But those are the stats that stuck in my head.
 
"The Sheppard line is an example referred to already in this thread. I think the jury is still out as to whether this should have been built, or whether the cost of almost $1 billion could have been better spent elsewhere."

The jury can return when the Sheppard line is finished, otherwise I'm declaring a mistrial.

Honestly, I'd rather see the Sheppard line reach Scarborough Town Centre before the B/D line. A microscopic investment in the GO network and some relatively cheap and easy express/rocket bus routes throughout Scarborough could not only replace the RT, it might reduce ridership in the corridor so much that extending the subway would seem as silly in the short term as the Sheppard line to Don Mills was and the Spadina line to York University is.

Even with the replacement of the RT with a subway, people will still face commutes twice as long as what they could be getting if GO wasn't so useless for so many of them.

"Apparently we are about to hear a major announcement re the Spadina line. Great ... but is it the best alternative at this time? I continue to be doubtful."

If there's a choice between getting a subway to York or getting nothing, I'll take the subway. Too bad it's too late to change their minds and get the project moved to something like the DRL.

"Even with his reign slowing the movement, I would hardly classify Toronto and other Ontario cities as having witnessed the spectacular decline of transit. In comparison to the 80's, I would say overall things are doing OK."

In the early 90s, there were so many buses on Finch East that some would run empty. Yet the ridership was there as even articulated buses on the route would often be full during rush hour. I can't think of any route in the city that sees that level of service today, including routes that are busier than Finch East. (maybe the Spadina streetcar, but only because of the weird bunching.) Other routes have seen their service improved since then due to suburban growth, so the service/ridership decline was not universal.
 
Re declines in regular transit usage: also consider that fewer people on average might have the kind of jobs that necessitate regular transit-scale commuting.

Oh, and more people are using bikes, too. I guess we ought to ban bicycles because they're undermining our transit volume...
 
you guys gotta stop coming up with excuses.

Transit market is down. And its not because people are using bikes.

Car use is at an all time high.

In 1989 there was not more captive riders. With 80%(according to the TTC, 65% of riders have a car, and further 15% choose not to own a car, eventhough they have means and high income to do so) of TTC riders being choice, the massive ridership decline was not because of people making more and getting cars. It was because of a massive shift of choice riders leaving the system behind.

So we gotta stop with the excuses or we are never going to fix the TTC.

Read the report on the future of downtown. One of the facts they stated was that people are now driving into downtown to go to restaurants, shopping, and entertainment, where before they use to take the TTC, untill the 1990's service cuts.

We can not deny these facts.

We had an amazing transit culture. We still do in some ways, but we have work to go, to get back to where we were.

There are now 200 less buses on our streets in rush hours compared to in 1989. That says something.

We having something good going here, but we need to give it a boost again. And denying the fact that the TTC needs major regiging of routes, needs to speed up service, and provide more comfort for riders, is not going to help the situation.

I love to point to this route info from 1985 to show you the problems we have today. This is the route 9 Bellemy bus. It goes through nothing but single family suburban homes, with people who have means to drive. Yet look at the timetable back in 1985. Today that bus only runs till 10PM on weekdays, and 7PM on weekends. Service goes down to every hour during many periods. But look at the service in 1985. No wonder people have left the TTC.

transit.toronto.on.ca/arc...9-1985.pdf

Of course the health of our transit system is tied to the health of our central core. And with less and less people regionally working in our core, its no wonder transit ridership lags.
Transit ridership is tied to a vital and strong downtown and central city workforce. When that erodes to the suburbs, the ridership goes with it.
Today downtown Toronto and the entire city means less to most regional residents. Meaning they are not commuting there, or using transit, compared to 1989, when there was much more respect and most people worked downtown.
It all does hand in hand.
 
We had an amazing transit culture.
Click to expand...
Really? When exactly did this pro-transit culture exist?

During the wars when taking the streetcar was special because it meant you did not have to walk 5km or more that day -- resources were scarce and everything was over capacity

During the 50's and 60's when infrastructure of all types were built as quickly as possible. In part to catch-up on everything ignored during the wars and in part to try and forget and replace everything pre-war. Toronto and Montreal were unique in that we built some public transit while most cities were removing it. Still, bus routes and streetcar routes were heavily gutted for subway development.

During the 70's when people panicked over oil and energy consumption? Transit was the cheap alternative, not the preferred alternative. Streetcars were saved by a handfull of people who convinced everyone else to keep them because they happened to be electric, a large majority of routes routes were long gone by this time.

During the boom/bust cycle of the 80's when pretty much everything went kersplat?

In 1989 there was not more captive riders.
Click to expand...
Actually, there were. Most people could not drive to their job due to a lack of highway capacity and the costs involved (inflation was a killer during the 70's and 80's -- less than a 5% raise was a pay cut).

This has been rectified by building the offices (and jobs) closer to the suburbs where people live, and by people building new homes (condos) downtown closer to where they work.
 
You know what rbtaylor. You guys are just going to try to always find the opposite in what I have to say. So go on and say whatever you want.

The fact of the matter is Toronto was a very pro transit, and the metro region was not riding transit because they where forced to. Toronto's historical high ridership has nothing to do with people being captive. It has to do with a transit system that worked, and got people where they needed to go.

Come up with all the excuses you want. But transit ridership was high, because our transit service was top notch, our jobs where located in transit friendly areas, etc. Not because people where poor.

To say most of Toronto's ridership was poor, is a disgrace to the TTC, saying that it is not good enough for the average person to use. When we all know its the average person who uses the TTC.

TTC is not Detroit Transit, where its regarded as the last resort for the poorest of the poor.
 
You guys are just going to try to always find the opposite in what I have to say.
Click to expand...
No, but if you are going to present numbers as facts, then you should include all of the numbers and not just the selective few you like.

Fact, in the late 1980s the amount of in service streetcar track within the City of Toronto was at an all time low for the 20th century.

The fact of the matter is Toronto was a very pro transit
Click to expand...
Pro-transit but anti-streetcar? We have more in-service streetcar track today than we did then and it is far more permenant -- durable and long lasting like something we want to keep around for a while.

We know it wasn't pro-subway because subway development was essentially stopped in 1985 with the SRT. Sheppard was a 1994 to 2002 construction. Nothing under construction between 1985 and 1994. That doesn't look to be very pro-transit to me. Highway construction in the GTA took place during this time period but not heavy transit investment.

Perhaps it was just a pro-bus culture then rather than a pro-transit culture?

1981 to 1983 there were about 350 busses delivered.

1988 and 1991 there were about 200 busses delivered.

2002 to 2005 has seen about 400 busses delivered, with several hundred more expected this year and next year, mostly as replacements to catchup on the reduced order volume from the mid-80's to late-90's.

How exactly was the city pro-transit in 1988/1989 when they did not undertake any expansion at all?

Toronto's historical high ridership has nothing to do with people being captive. It has to do with a transit system that worked, and got people where they needed to go.
Click to expand...

Harris and other conservatives were re-elected for a job well done in 1999. Scarborough played their part in this by voting, in majority, Progressive Conservative in 1999 well after the first round of major transit cutbacks.

Scarborough—Agincourt: Liberal
Scarborough Centre: Progressive Conservative
Scarborough East: Progressive Conservative
Scarborough—Rouge River: Liberal
Scarborough Southwest: Progressive Conservative

Transit and other cutbacks were requested by the suburbs. The very people who tended to be the choice transit riders in your pro-transit Toronto.

Why did they do this? Why did the people in Scarborough like the results of the Harris cutbacks in the mid-90's and re-elect their PC MPPs? They obviously liked the Harris cutbacks and wanted more of that type of government -- why would a pro-transit culture of '89 turn into an anti-transit culture by '93? Are people of Scarborough that fickle?

Hamilton and Sarnia tossed rejected a few PC incumbants in that election so it wasn't an insurmountable task.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ont...on%2C_1999
upload.wikimedia.org/wiki...nt1999.PNG


So, in the late 80's there were no successful transit expansion efforts demonstrating people did not believe public transit was worth putting money into. In fact, we see that the late-80's started a trend against no only expansion but upkeep and maintenance of what we do have. Scarborough in particular did not like transit starting with the late 80's.

How exactly what this a pro-transit culture?

They used the already build infrastructure from the 50's, 60's and 70's but refused to invest a penny more into it starting in about 1985. That's not pro-transit. That's pro-milking what we already have.
 
Just beware about using transit statistics during the post war period. Between the 1950s and 1990, the population of metro doubled, however transit ridership did not. The TTC carried 320 million poeple in 1954, but in 1989 with twice the population, the TTC was only carrying about 150 million more rides per year.

The period which saw the largest drop in rides per capita was the 1960s and 1970s as the suburban population boomed. By the late 80s, despite having the highest ridership ever, rides per capita on the TTC were still 20% lower than the 50s.

While it's definitely true that more poeple were riding the TTC in the late 80s than now, the population of "metro" has not increased very much since. The drop in rides per capita experienced in the last 15 years pales in comparison to the drop experienced during the TTC's "glory days" which mike has referred to.
 
Wasn't the recession also a factor in the decline in transit ridership across Canada in the early 90's? The overall trend is that transit use is going up, not down.
 
I'm reluctant to wieght in but I think Mike is failing to grasp three major issues:

1. Changes in settlement, land-use and demographic patterns are not just a Toronto phenomena - decentralization of urban centres over the course of the 20th century in not just a Toronto issue, it is happening everywhere on the planet where there is a sizeable and growing middle class population (Those who could afford it have been moving outside central cities for thousands of years - Roman Villas, Versailles etc - the 20th century has witnessed an explosion of the 'middle class' in the industrialized world - personally I think that's had far more of an impact on settlement patterns than the private automobile which is the whipping boy in most arguments). The middle class can afford both mobility and a housing form (single family detached) that is generally perceived to be more desirable.

2. Politics. Regardless of how important Miketoronto or members of this forum believe transit expansion to be, in a democratic society transit must be balanced with a number of other priorities. This balance shifts from time to time depending who is in power and how important transit is on voters priority list. The pendulum swings back and forth - today the "transit culture" is stronger than it was a decade ago - a decade from now it may be stronger or weaker.

3. Economics. Mike this is your biggest stumbling block. I think think you understand economics, budgets and how government works. Infrastructure costs a lot of money and as I mentioned about politics the relative importance of transit is balanced with other priorities and it shifts from year to year.

You suggest "no excuses"... but I would suggest multi-billion dollar price tags are not "an excuse" they are a "cold harsh reality". The City is in a deficit position, as is the province. Transit and other suggestions you've posted over the years cost a lot of money.... and yet you often ramble on about business locating outside the city - the main reason being high business taxes in 416. Please try to connect the dots - everything is related.
 
You suggest "no excuses"...
Click to expand...

It is hardly a case of making excuses. If anything discussions like these are helpful in that the more one understands about transit use patterns, the more information one has, and the it is understood how all the factors played out that lead to transit declines in North America, the better equiped one is too make rational suggestions about what to do in the future.

but I would suggest multi-billion dollar price tags are not "an excuse" they are a "cold harsh reality".
Click to expand...

Its one thing to say something should be done about transit. Its another to acknowledge "how" it can be done given social, political and fiscal realities.

I would like just as much as any other person here to see cities investing more in transit and passenger rail travel. But im not foolish enough to think that it will happen just because a few people in Laval or Burnuby decide to put up some posters or even form a group. The lack of investment in transit is very much a reflection of how our society has thought over the past 50 years. Before anyone can expect to see a transit revival, there are going to have to be some rather fundamnetal shifts in the way people think and approach transportation and urbanism.

Most people here want to see that, and I think most people understand it is not a simple Event A caused Event B thus Action C will solve the problem. It, like most realities of life, is far more complicated, which is why people inhabi forums like this one so that the necessary discussion can take place.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top