[Rainforest]

As to this argument that the downtown somehow gets more from the suburbs, it is sheer lunacy. Anyone telling themselves that is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Not only does the downtown core provide 40% of the revenue of the city, it is where the majority of new development is happening. It is where the majority of the revitalization of the city is happening. And investment there provides returns - which are then funnelled to the suburbs. Sheppard Subway. Subway to Vaughn. Scarborough subway. Finch, Sheppard LRT. Eglinton Line. The only things that have happened in the last 50 years have been in the suburbs.

I think, it is a bit more complex than that. Certainly, downtown has been overlooked in the past few decades in terms of transit investments, and it needs more transit (for the benefit of the whole city). However, the assumption that downtown heavily subsidizes those pesky suburbanites is not necessarily correct. Downtown has art facilities that belong to the whole city, but in practice are more accessible for those who live nearby. The fact that suburbanites travel to downtown jobs, and then dine and job in the area, contributes to the downtown's property tax base to some extent. Etc

Sure downtown is getting new streetcars (a decade late), but the downtown TTC subsidizes the suburban TTC with its profitable routs. And I don't even get services provided in the suburbs, like snow clearing of my sidewalks or leaf collection.

It is true that downtown subsidizes suburban TTC routes, but this is partly the result of flat-fare system. Such system makes longer routes inevitably unprofitable, even though they are no less efficient than short routes in terms of the drivers' time or fuel spent per rider per km.

If we believe that flat-fare system is preferable for social reasons, then we should not complain about its financial effects. Or, if we think it is too generous, then we should move to a zone-based system.

 

[wopchop]

Its actually very accurate. I've taken the 192 bus at rush hour and gotten from Kipling to the airport in 15 minutes on the 427.

Yep, and that part of the 427 is actually well used, definitely not "light traffic". I'd say well-designed as well, given how great it functions during rush hour, as you've mentioned here.

Indeed. I drive it all the time. The southbound 427 to westbound QEW and eastbound Gardiner are horribly backed up in the evening rush, and the ramp from northbound 427 to eastbound 401 is also really busy, but the area in between is always free-sailing. There are definitely a lot of cars using it, but I can reliably do 100 - 120km/h on a daily basis.

I live in Long Branch, so I get off at Browns Line, and recently was commuting up and down the 427 every day for months (eastbound 401 to southbound 427 in the evening), and was never stopped in evening traffic once. It takes me longer to drive Browns Line than it does for me to drive 427 from the 401 to QEW/Gardiner.

 

[Rainforest]

a) Toronto desperately needs to de-amalgamate and the whole Tory + Micallef 'One Toronto' non-sense is baseless utopia

Perhaps, de-amalgamation would be a good move, and result in more coherent city councils in each city formed afterwards.

But de-amalgamation can only be legislated by the provincial government.

Until that happens, any politician who is not attempting to bridge the divides, will be losing consistently.

 

[Eug]

a ridiculous desire to just not want to believe data (many of them when given a fact just made up their own version)

It should be noted that the projected traffic delays of 2-3 minutes are based on assumptions that a whole bunch of currently unfunded transit projects get built. That in itself is reason enough to be skeptical of the data.

OTOH, a different study by the University of Toronto suggested the delay could be as long as 10 minutes. Now that study may not be perfect either, but the point is I'm not convinced one can accept the 2-3 minute estimate as written in stone. Although I am no expert, I have come to think both are probably biased, and perhaps the truth is somewhere in between.

The interesting part of this that I got out of this discussion is that the city doesn't actually refute the U of T study. It just says U of T makes different assumptions.

 

[WislaHD]

As a former San Francisco resident, I definitely find this vote stunning. Not that this land is nearly as prime as the Embarcadero, but still a shocking turn of events.

Now SF had some pretty ridiculous city council members, but I have to say listening to the live stream of the debate, Toronto definitely has council members that are just shockingly unqualified. Policy positions that are inconsistent (Colle wanting to both maintain and sell it), speeches that are just incoherent (DiGorgio), a ridiculous desire to just not want to believe data (many of them when given a fact just made up their own version), Karygiannis (tunnels, tunnels, tunnels...why not throw in a monorail). And Tory was willing to do whatever it took to get his way...so much political capital expended. Amazing, embarrassing.

Welcome to Toronto.

 

[ssiguy2]

The debate is over and at leats now developers and Waterfront Toronto can develop future plans with certainty and that's a good thing.

I would have preferred a teardown but Toronto can still create a wonderful Waterfront that is far better with the Gardiner than without. Seeing Lakeshore will be redone, the entire area under the Gardiner is a clean slate. They can make it a pedestrian wonderland as long as they don't allow any bikes which guarantees little pedestrian life.

Cover the enire underside with beautiful wood panelling, old style lamp fixtures, cafes, restaurants, food stalls, clothing stores.......make the Gardiner a "go to" place. A combo Yonge/Queen/Kensington Market. The area where people in the Waterfront/Portlands go to do their shopping, entertainment, get a drink, grab a bite to eat, watch street performers, buy their fresh produce or meet friends for a coffee. The entire stretch from Yonge to the DVP could prove to the world tha elevated urban expressways can be a city's best friend.

An area where after walking down Yonge and taking in all the weird sights and sounds people don't stop at Union but keep going and "do the Gardiner". The Gardiner could become Toronto's urban oasis that unlike any other offers a 4 season. Toronto is a winter city and the Gardiner could be the place everyone wants to see and be seen even when it's raining or snowing.

It's true that this was a decision for 100 years and it could turn out to be one of the best the city every made. If Toronto gets this right, in 20 years to 100 years from now people will be looking back and commending Tory and the current councillors for having the wisdom to keep the elvated highway and people will say "thank god they didn't tear down the Gardiner".

 

[Armour]

What was the purpose of council voting to study the burial of the entire Gardiner when they largely just ignore whatever studies say?

Additionally, would this study take into account the East Gardiner? And what is the point in studying the burial of the entire highway (though something I would love to happen)? I imagine that the enormous cost would instantly put this prospect to rest. And is this something that would be considered in the near future or many years from now?

 

[Eug]

I believe it was a strategic move to get tunnel-councillor K on board with the hybrid vote.

 

[salsa]

How can the presence of a single streetcar line, with rather unreliable service, define the whole riding? Buses probably carry several times more riders than 501 / 508 in that area.

When I said "streetcar suburb" I was describing the build form not the level of transit service. The Lakeshore area is quite similar to St Clair W in that it's old and walkable. However improved transit there (LRT and more service) would help a lot with revitalizing the area.

 

[Armour]

I believe it was a strategic move to get tunnel-councillor K on board with the hybrid vote.

How would that sway him to vote for the hybrid when he only wanted to tunnel the eastern portion and not the entire thing?

Will the tunneling of the entire Gardiner still be studied then or will that be discarded?

 

[picard102]

Yet, apparently you're still a jerk that feels the need to rub things in others' faces. So, SNAFU, right?

Sorry, was I stepping on the hyperbolic bullshit to heavily?

 

[44 North]

Olivia lost because of her lacklustre performance at the debates and her inability to express herself smoothly. She did not come across as a strong leader; instead, she lofted platitudes about mothers waiting for buses and other folksy-type horseshit. Her heart wasn't in it, and it showed.

Correct. The skeptic in me thinks she acted loopy and silly on purpose so as to garner votes for Tory (in order to defeat Doug). Or that she was paid to do so. And because of the way she was acting in these debates, I presumed she was on benzos. I wouldn't want someone like her as mayor of a city so large and important as TO. Chow, Doug, Tory...it was obvious to most watching the debates that the only relatively normal person was Tory. Boring and old as he may be, he actually answered the questions.

 

[nfitz]

All my friends who voted for Tory, thinking he would be a reasonable compromise now regret their vote now that they see he's as "conservative" as Rob Ford

What kind of person would have thought that a right-wing Conservative like Tory, so right wing he tried to make religious schooling free for fundamentalist Christians, joined a whites-only golf club, and strongly endorsed a wife-beating racist for mayor would be a reasonable compromise. Surely anyone who voted for Tory, who is now complaining that Tory is doing the kind of stuff one would have expected him to do during the election, only has themselves to blame.

 

[GenerationW]

By that same logic then, downtown councillors should have no say in the Scarborough subway. Careful what you wish for. Then again, by that same logic, the DRL will be a slamdunk.

Downtown councillors don't seem to particularly want the DRL, so I'd be all for excluding them from DRL votes.

If the city was not an incoherently amalgamated mess the decision would have been different and everyone (including inner suburbanites) would have greatly benefited, as every single study on the subject showed.

Not much difference since this would have been decided at Metro Council if amalgamation didn't happen. The hybrid option would arguably win by a bigger margin at Metro.

 

[UD2]

Reason triumphs today, I'm happy to see the Mayor and his band of councillors who thinks using their brain are able to defeat the developer backed puppets who tried to destroy our city infrastructure.