[Woodbridge_Heights]

I think the main thing keeping people attached to their cars, at least in this city, is that public transit is just so excruciatingly s l o w.

The subways we do have are not extensive enough. GO is acceptably fast, but the buses can get tied up in traffic. Buses in the suburbs are a PITA to take. Most streetcars are laughably slow.

Whenever I go to other cities I marvel at how easy, convenient and extensive public transit is. Here, it's a joke.

We unquestionably need to invest a LOT of money into transit. Otherwise the GTA will choke on its traffic.

If we are going to reduce our car dependance we need to provide a high level of service from public transit. The same "Use public transit, don't use a car" and "If your commute is long than move close to your place of work" comments simply don't address to facts that exist out on the street every single day. Non downtown oriented commutes are slow and obtrusive, even downtown commutes are difficult unless you work on GO's peak scheduling. Connections between transit systems are a joke. The labour market is nothing like what are parents had. Dual incomes are a requirement not a luxury in the current economy. Jobs are at their least stable than they have ever been, people entering the workforce are being told to expect to hold 5 - 10 different jobs/positions through their working career.

All this leads to at least one vehicle being almost required. Two people working are not likely to, or cannot be expected to work in the same area. Changing jobs means what was once close is now far from home.

By no means am I advocating a car culture but we need to focus on improving our transit rather than beating people down for making economic choices that work for them (see numerous posters here who have laid out their financial calculations which justify their ownership of a car).

 

[js97]

Too many idealists and not enough pragmatists.

In a city so underserved by Public transit, a car is more or less a necessity. Keep in mind not everyone is able to bike the 2 km to work or work at a cozy desk job that they are able to bike after an 8 hour shift.

The so called 'anti-car' group is pragmatically limited to single or no-children hipsters living within a 3 km radius of the core (and that's not even true) I've lived in Riverdale/Trinity Bellwoods, both supposedly 'green' conscious neighbourhood, yet have always had a hard time finding street parking at the end of the night. Seems to me every one of the households have at least 1 car, per a family, if not 2.

I think all those posters that truely believe in their ideas should try and live it once they have a family/children... IT will be a completely different perspective

 

[neubilder]

I think the main thing keeping people attached to their cars, at least in this city, is that public transit is just so excruciatingly s l o w.

The subways we do have are not extensive enough. GO is acceptably fast, but the buses can get tied up in traffic. Buses in the suburbs are a PITA to take. Most streetcars are laughably slow.

Whenever I go to other cities I marvel at how easy, convenient and extensive public transit is. Here, it's a joke.

We unquestionably need to invest a LOT of money into transit. Otherwise the GTA will choke on its traffic.

Agreed, completely.

Toronto needs radical, not incremental changes to its transportation systems. Drastic reductions in car usage brought about through road tolls, giving over the extra space and revenues to transportation, bike infrastructure, parks, greenbelts, etc. It's the only way quality of life is going to improve in Toronto. Right now I can feel my throat constricting due to smog. (None of it caused by me)

 

[neubilder]

But as it stands people like CN Tower will simply drive more (by his own admission), filling the void resulting from those who feel compelled to 'do the right thing'. The only way to get results is to tax people. This was the conclusive finding in Denmark where they have been very proactive in this regard and have had overwhelmingly good results..

 

[Admiral Beez]

But as it stands people like CN Tower will simply drive more (by his own admission), filling the void resulting from those who feel compelled to 'do the right thing'. The only way to get results is to tax people. This was the conclusive finding in Denmark where they have been very proactive in this regard and have had overwhelmingly good results..

Denmark did it the other way round, they first improved their transit system, and then used taxation and tolls as an incentive to drive people from their cars into transit.

In Toronto we keep seeing people advocating for the opposite. They want to use tolls and taxation to force (not incentivize) those who can't pay onto crappy public transit and then someday use the money garnered from those that still drive to improve public transit. Notice in this process there is no incentive to use public transit beyond avoiding the proposed punishing financial hit of driving.

And can we stop using European cities from tiny and highly concentrated countries like Denmark as the role model for Toronto? Toronto is not Copenhagen. Copenhagen has an area of 88.25 km2, a population of 551,580 and a density of 6,300 people per km2. Toronto, at 630 sq/km (240 sq mi) with 2,615,060 people and a density of only 4,149 people per km2 (10,750/sq mi) is more akin to a big and widely sprawled city in the USA.

Find me a city with Toronto's area and population density and then let's look at how their public transit and road infrastructure compares to TO. That means not Copenhagen. Chicago, with area of 227 sq mi and density of 12,750/sq mi is a much more realistic comparison. I'm in the Chicago area almost monthly for work (thank goodness for Porter and Midway), and drive everywhere.

 

[LordWanker]

But as it stands people like CN Tower will simply drive more (by his own admission), filling the void resulting from those who feel compelled to 'do the right thing'. The only way to get results is to tax people. This was the conclusive finding in Denmark where they have been very proactive in this regard and have had overwhelmingly good results..

As the existing public transit system is pathetic in terms of capacity, reliability and service hours, good luck in finding a political party willing to propose such a tax.

The bigger issue is not located here but in developing countries such as South Asia where car use has exploded. I'm not aware of any environmental laws or controls in place over there, at least ones which are enforceable.

 

[CN Tower]

But as it stands people like CN Tower will simply drive more (by his own admission), filling the void resulting from those who feel compelled to 'do the right thing'.

"Do the right thing"
ROTFLMAO

Your self-righteous, sanctimonious, self-serving & myopic comments literally floor me.

Lemme guess...you have no kids?

 

[RocketAppliances]

Soooooo..... How about that market crashing?

 

[neubilder]

"Do the right thing"
ROTFLMAO

Your self-righteous, sanctimonious, self-serving & myopic comments literally floor me.

Lemme guess...you have no kids?

Like I said, the only solution is to tax the $hit out of wasters and polluters.

 

[Dan416]

Like I said, the only solution is to tax the $hit out of wasters and polluters.

As others have mentioned and you have blissfully ignored, we can only do that if we actually IMPROVE public transit FIRST.

 

[neubilder]

Ignored? I've agreed with you.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

@neubilder I think the point of separation is the improve transit first then tax the remaining car users vs the tax the car users then improve transit. That is a HUGE separation in logic and policy.

 

[ttk77]

Except that it appears that senior levels of government are unwilling to invest the billions of dollars necessary to improve public transit. We're left with the choice of either not improving transit at all or implementing a revenue generating scheme to fund it ourselves (taxes, tolls, user fees...). In this economy and political climate saying that you don't want taxes put in place until after transit is built is essentially the same thing as saying you don't think improved public transit should be built at all.

 

[neubilder]

@neubilder I think the point of separation is the improve transit first then tax the remaining car users vs the tax the car users then improve transit. That is a HUGE separation in logic and policy.

Any transit strategy must involve both a plan to improve transit and a means to pay for it. The means to pay for transit must be established before the money is spent. An essential component of paying for transit is a willingness to tax driving.

I have not suggested that you tax drivers first and then one day build transit. That would be stupid.

But, a willingness to fund transit with car taxes must be part of any strategy, which then leads to ttk77's good point. That unless the *decision* to implement road tolls and other forms of driving taxes are *established* first it will be impossible to fund anything.

 

[gristle]

First, I find it a little funny that Toronto transit is described as "a joke" or "crappy." I'd suggest that in the Canadian - or even North American context, it still stands up pretty well. Public transit will never provide door to door movement like a car. It doesn't do that anywhere, and can't do that in the outer sprawling suburban environment.

Funding transit isn't rocket science either, and possible sources are multiple. But as was noted here earlier, it takes political will. Funding has to be consistent and budgeted year after year. For example, it would be nice to see a portion of the federal gas tax directed to transit. That would not be difficult to do - except that we don't have a national transit strategy. It would also be nice if the 400-series of highways had tolls applied for their upkeep. Money for that action - now originating from general revenue - could then be diverted to transit infrastructure.

Transit out to the suburbs, where urban sprawl is prevalent, is a bit of a losing game. There really is no way to build a very comprehensive transit system out there. It would lose a ton of money. Suburbs are built on car use, and uptake of transit would only be achieved if the construction of considerable parking facilities would be included. Still, what would that ultimately achieve in terms of user increases? Without a sustained subsidy, suburban transit is, and will be, impossibly costly. I get a little pissed off when some suburbanites complain that transit is no good when it's the ways that contemporary suburbs are built which is the thing that is no good.

Public transit in the downtown core and the built-up areas of the city are where transit does best. There already is a disincentive to use cars, and automobile use could be further reduced by adding to existing transit lines, frequencies and integration. An additional subway line is needed - like a DRL - as that makes the most sense to build and to build quickly. Integrating east-west and north-south movement is always a good idea.