[valkoholic]

I'm looking at the summary PDF right now, and I believe what you are calling downtown is "PD1" in this document (?)

If I'm reading it right, it says the 2001 modal share to PD1 was 13% "walk or cycle". Why does this not match up with your 1 + 4% numbers? It also says 30% "walk and cycle" for travel within PD1...

I don't really feel like arguing the methodolgy behind my numbers (I don't know much, but I know how Toronto gets to work), but here goes:

No, my numbers aren't from Pd1, it was a grouping of smaller zones repressenting downtown south of Queen. It was done for a specific project in which I needed to compare a survey of travel behaviour to prevailing City travel patterns.

My guess is you're looking at residential numbers, mine are employment (more relavent downtown wehere travel patterns are driven by employment).

Here's my point:

I don't dislike cycling, it's just not a major factor in how the City works. Lot's of people on this forum cycle, and lot's of people involved in planning cycle, so it tends to come off more important than it actually is. For Toronto's transportation system, which is designed to get millions of people to work everyday, the importance of cycling is overstated. If Toronto is to truly change, it will be transit, not cycling, that makes the difference. Again, I'm not saying that because I don't like bikes, I'm saying it because it is such a small factor today. Even a massive shift towards cycling would get the mode split to only 3 or 4%, which is still insginficant to transit and (unfortunately) cars.

 

[kettal]

The Ipsos Reid study is scientific. I don't see how you can toss it out, only for an old report on a small fraction of the city using numbers from 10 years ago. Even if it's not every day, 16% of the population biking to school/work, and 29% of the population biking for utilitarian purposes is not insignificant. At the very least, it means that 16% have a bike-practical commute, and could potentially switch to bike as their main mode of commute.

Anybody who bikes to downtown will tell you that the number of bike commutes has risen very much in just the past 3 years, never mind since 2001. Many of the CBD office towers have had to double the bike parking facilities in their parking garages due to the increase in demand.

 

[gweed123]

Why would you only focus on biking for the purposes of commuting? Putting in dedicated bike lanes and separate bike paths makes it safer for children to bike places as well. I really don't get this 'it's insignificant for commuting, therefore we shouldn't really even bother' mentality. You design a transportation network for other things besides just commuting you know. For me, designing a transportation system which lowers the risk of kids getting side-swiped by a car while they're travelling to their friends' house is also important.

Side note: In Ottawa, every Sunday morning and afternoon during the summer they shut down one of the major arteries in the city (the Ottawa River Parkway) and open it up to walkers/bikers/rollerbladers/whathaveyou. It draws literally thousands of people. We shut down Lakeshore Blvd here for a weekend day because of a race for charity, and the city throws a shit-fit. Toronto needs a serious change in mentality when it comes to approaching alternative forms of transportation. And by transportation, I don't just mean getting too and from work, which I think too many people are overly focused on.

 

[valkoholic]

I agree commuting is probably too much of a focus in the world of transportation planning, but the reality is much of the investment is based on accomodating the massive commuting flows. I would love to see a modest investment from the City to improve our off-street bike network. We have a great trail system now, and a small investment in maintanence, some new connections, and better signage would make it amazing. This system could have huge recreational potential, but also be a way for people to commute to and from work. For example, the fastest way for me to bike to work is actually by trail, the problem is a couple of the connections are terrible.

 

[Mapleson]

Transportation planning focuses on commuting because that's where/when our system is overloaded. We have an AM peak and a PM peak that correspond to people going to and coming from 9-5 jobs (give or take a couple hours). Sunday morning things run free. That's the whole concept behind things such as carpool lanes.

The "War on Cars" is a mentality of those that don't understand transportation. For a working system you have two choices: provide capacity to meet peak demand or limit peak demand. As we press the first option further, it is only prudent to see how costs for the second option compare. The goal is to get everyone where they need to be when they need to be there. It's not a competition, but in a limited system balance must be struck between different modes of transportation. Reducing the percentage modal split that cars represent in our transportation network isn't a "War on Cars", but providing room for those cars to keep moving, because that lower percent still represents more cars than yesterday.

Bicycles offer a higher density of road users compared to private vehicles, but lower than public transit. They currently are under represented in Canadian commuting compared to the other modes, but you get into the situation of the chicken and the egg. We won't build bike lanes until more people bike. More people won't bike until there is a safe, connected network convienent to them.

 

[Chuck]

When people like Chuck and Rob Ford call for an end to the "War on cars", what they are really calling for is the continuation of the "War on transit, walking and biking."

I don't appreciate the personal attacks. My opening line was that because Rob Ford has crossed the line between pro-car and anti-transit, I would not vote for him. My viewpoint is simply that at a time when the entire transportation system is overburdened, it is wrong to improve one mode by sacrificing the capacity of another. The transportation network is completely intertwined, so congestion in one mode will spill over and affect other modes. And if you must know, I am a solid rider of the TTC. I live in the city and do not own a car.

Repeating what I have said multiple times over, transit - especially heavy rail - should be our number one priority for expansion. However, Toronto cannot be compared to a centuries old European city whose urban population matured at a time before the existence of cars. There will always be a sizeable segment of the population which can not be well served by transit due to many irreversible housing and emplyment tracts that have been built in the GTA. If the needs of these commuters are ignored, it will be of no benefit to the city region.

So again, my point is this: road capacity doesn't need to be prioritized, nor does it even necessarily have to be expanded in a significant way. But until there is a meaningful drop in car usage due to transit expansion, the construction of sustainable modes of travel should be implemented in a manner that preserves road space. Even if only 23% of commuters into the downtown core drive, annoying them enough to cause them to seek employment elsewhere would have a devastating effect.

 

[Towered]

There will always be a sizeable segment of the population which can not be well served by transit due to many irreversible housing and emplyment tracts that have been built in the GTA.

I don't agree - anything can change. Bloor Street was once lined with individual houses.

 

[StIdes]

What about climate change? What about the price of fuel, which will return and exceed the highs from before the recession? What about walking to bus and streetcar stops, and riding bicycles for exercise and to fight obesity.

lol people still believe in climate change?

 

[doady]

I don't appreciate the personal attacks. My opening line was that because Rob Ford has crossed the line between pro-car and anti-transit, I would not vote for him. My viewpoint is simply that at a time when the entire transportation system is overburdened, it is wrong to improve one mode by sacrificing the capacity of another. The transportation network is completely intertwined, so congestion in one mode will spill over and affect other modes. And if you must know, I am a solid rider of the TTC. I live in the city and do not own a car.

I don't care how much you use the TTC. It doesn't automatically make your opinions any better, or any different, than that of Rob Ford.

And my post was referring your opinions, what you were saying, and not your character, so you can stop being a drama queen.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't think anything Chuck said here is being a "drama queen". Can we all tone the rhetoric down a notch?

AoD

 

[kettal]

So again, my point is this: road capacity doesn't need to be prioritized, nor does it even necessarily have to be expanded in a significant way. But until there is a meaningful drop in car usage due to transit expansion, the construction of sustainable modes of travel should be implemented in a manner that preserves road space. Even if only 23% of commuters into the downtown core drive, annoying them enough to cause them to seek employment elsewhere would have a devastating effect.

Not really. If even just a fraction of this 23% do switch to employment elsewhere, then the traffic problem solves itself.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If forecasts are for higher gasoline prices, why build more roads? See http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/04/gas_prices313.html for the article.

 

[reaperexpress]

lol people still believe in climate change?

Well, climate change is a phenomenon, not a religion, so you don't "believe in" it. And yes, a great number of people acknowledge the fact that the climate is changing at a rate faster than normal.

 

[Chuck]

I don't care how much you use the TTC. It doesn't automatically make your opinions any better, or any different, than that of Rob Ford.

I am pro transit, Rob Ford is anti transit. The difference between him and I speaks for itself.

I'll try to explain it again. The transportation grid is a single, intertwined entity. Closing lanes or reducing through capacity for the benefit of one mode will have a far reaching impact, not the least of which is slower surface transit. In an extreme example, how much fun is it riding a bus on Finch or Sheppard when there's an accident on the 401? Let's build more subway lines, and in the mean time, be mindful of the need to at least sustain existing road capacity until we have the subway and commuter rail system that is required.

Look at any major transportation initiative...I ultimately support closing the Gardiner, building bike lanes on Jarvis, and adding more 4 way pedestrian crossings. But until the grade separated transit system is improved (and our city and province are sadly inept at this) it's foolish to implement these projects.

 

[kettal]

I'll try to explain it again. The transportation grid is a single, intertwined entity. Closing lanes or reducing through capacity for the benefit of one mode will have a far reaching impact, not the least of which is slower surface transit. In an extreme example, how much fun is it riding a bus on Finch or Sheppard when there's an accident on the 401? Let's build more subway lines, and in the mean time, be mindful of the need to at least sustain existing road capacity until we have the subway and commuter rail system that is required.

If the bus or LRT is in a reserved lane, I would predict the ride would be fine in that example. Besides, the road capacity isn't decreasing, most of it will involve widening of the road...