News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 26K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.6K     0 

newearthling

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
Anyone going to the DRL city meetings?
There is one tonight, at Riverdale Collegiate Institute, 1094 Gerrard Street East. Presentation starts at 630pm.
And there is one at an east end church near Pape and Danforth on Saturday, Holy Name Parish, 71 Gough Avenue. Presentation starts at 10am. I might go to that one.
 

Hipster Duck

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
9
Not so, recent studies made it obvious that motorists pay more than their share already. Time for transit users (highly subsidized) to pony up.

I know others have dug into you for this, but let's assume you're right.

Well, if that was the case, then what would you propose? To expand roadway capacity everywhere so that the per-driver subsidy equals zero? But if that were the case, the expanded road capacity would just fill up with cars and lead growth to switch to suburban sprawl, necessitating the need for more roadway capacity. If that happens, the subsidy to drivers rises above zero, and you can no longer say that drivers pay more to use the road than we subsidize car travel. Also, we're deeper in debt.
 

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,046
Reaction score
965
I did a quick search and found:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/03.htm

Other sources suggest that the number is more like 10,000 times. This means that the entire re-construction costs for roads should be borne by the trucks (and buses) and not cars. If we wanted to price things fairly, trucks would pay a whole lot more and all merchandise should go up as a result.

The flip side is that if we start to price busses to account for a greater cost of road reconstruction than fares (or subsidies) would have to go up. Thus driving potential transit riders into private vehicles and exacerbating traffic congestion. And if the subject were broached the public would probably be more likely to point the finger at busses for causing road reconstruction (a bus's effect on the road is readily visible, see moose knuckles/buckling of roadways at bus stop locations near intersections, than the road trucking industry as their effects, while likely cause greater damage/costs, are far less visible than a bus.
 

spider

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
1
I know others have dug into you for this, but let's assume you're right.

Well, if that was the case, then what would you propose? To expand roadway capacity everywhere so that the per-driver subsidy equals zero? But if that were the case, the expanded road capacity would just fill up with cars and lead growth to switch to suburban sprawl, necessitating the need for more roadway capacity. If that happens, the subsidy to drivers rises above zero, and you can no longer say that drivers pay more to use the road than we subsidize car travel. Also, we're deeper in debt.
I propose the construction of Transit options that are such an attractive alternative that some motorists may leave their cars at home. New motorists will probably appear to take their place on the congested roads making the whole exercise a wash for the motorists but a definite advantage for those who choose or must use transit. Since Transit users are the only winners why shouldn't they bear their share or more of the cost?

Merely building more roads is not a solution, they will fill up with cars and we will be back to square one with no alternative.
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,803
Reaction score
1,505
City:
Hamilton
I attended the Metrolinx and TTC consultation at Riverdale Collegiate last night. It seemed like the general feeling from the attendees is that the study process takes too long. I posted some other notes on my blog http://www.riverdaler.ca/2014/downtown-relief-line-public-consultation/

This project is kind of an interesting one from a public consultation POV. One the one hand, it's a very intricate project that needs consultation with the communities. On the other, it's one of the few transit projects in the City where any reasonable option would work very well (Wellington alignment, King alignment, Queen alignment, via Pape, via Donlands, etc), so you really have to question if public input is really going to make that big of a difference, because in the end it's going to come down to a professional evaluation of 2 or 3 really good options.

For this project, I would be tempted to cut the number of public consultations down in an effort to shorten the timeline, simply because there are very few bad options. Come up with a short list, hold a few public consultations on that, and then choose the preferred alignment. Then when it comes to station location and design, consult with community groups.

With most projects I see the merit in lots of public consultation, because the end result really isn't clear. But with this project, IMO speeding it up is more important than being 'inclusive'.
 

newearthling

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
I propose the construction of Transit options that are such an attractive alternative that some motorists may leave their cars at home. New motorists will probably appear to take their place on the congested roads making the whole exercise a wash for the motorists but a definite advantage for those who choose or must use transit. Since Transit users are the only winners why shouldn't they bear their share or more of the cost?

Merely building more roads is not a solution, they will fill up with cars and we will be back to square one with no alternative.

Spider have you ever taken the ttc during rush hour? If you think vehicular gridlock is bad, just imagine being squished up against hundreds of other people. It will take a lot to convince transit winners that they are winning.
However, it is easy to see the benefits with taking more vehicles off the road. Fewer cases of respiratory disease. Less farm land being eaten up by car-dependent sprawling development. A healthier population because they are not driving everywhere and getting no exercise. Fewer resource wars over seas to control oil resources etc.
Neighbourhood car pooling should be encouraged, especially as the price of gas rises. Businesses that have people work from home 2 days a week could get tax breaks, etc. Enforcing transit and bike lane infrastructure gets built in every new development; they would all go a long way in cutting down on traffic.
The age of the single car driver is over. We just need to make the transition as painless as possible. But given the state of decision making in the GTA, I don't think that is likely.
 

spider

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
1
Still assuming you are right (which you aren't, but still assuming), you do realize that more than 50% of transit riders in this city also own a car, right?
The TTC has summer schedules because schools are closed not because riders who own cars are taking vacations. Students who are a very large segment of TTC ridership not only don't own cars they aren't even licenced to drive them if they did.
 

spider

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
1
Spider have you ever taken the ttc during rush hour? If you think vehicular gridlock is bad, just imagine being squished up against hundreds of other people. It will take a lot to convince transit winners that they are winning.

They aren't but they will be if Transit construction takes priority over road expansions. I am retired now but took Transit to work for years.

Neighbourhood car pooling should be encouraged, especially as the price of gas rises. Businesses that have people work from home 2 days a week could get tax breaks, etc. Enforcing transit and bike lane infrastructure gets built in every new development; they would all go a long way in cutting down on traffic.

Nanny stuff.

The age of the single car driver is over. We just need to make the transition as painless as possible. But given the state of decision making in the GTA, I don't think that is likely
.

I insist on the right to drive without passengers if it makes sense to me, many people don't just drive to the office and park the car until quitting time.

The only cure for congestion is to make the Transit alternative so attractive that it won't be ignored by enough people to get out of their cars where they can.
 

pw20

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
927
Reaction score
207
The TTC has summer schedules because schools are closed not because riders who own cars are taking vacations. Students who are a very large segment of TTC ridership not only don't own cars they aren't even licenced to drive them if they did.

I have never heard of a summer TTC schedule. I'm not sure this exists outside of your imagination? Also students don't impact afternoon rush hour (schools are let out at 3:20).
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,111
City:
Toronto
I have never heard of a summer TTC schedule. I'm not sure this exists outside of your imagination? Also students don't impact afternoon rush hour (schools are let out at 3:20).

Happens every year. High schools, university, etc. all contribute ridership to the TTC. Whenever they are out of school, like summer break, the schedules get adjusted for less people. It gets re-adjusted after Labour Day for increases in ridership.

Check this link for TTC updates to the routes.

In Toronto, high school students (and now expanded to other students) get student TTC ID cards, so they can use the student discount on the TTC. This is different than in the states, where they use school buses to transport high school students. There are school buses for some high school kids, but the majority do not use school buses. See this link for complete information.

When I was a student, I could only use the student fare before 5 PM and only during school days. Today, students can use the student fare all day and all year.
 
Last edited:

pw20

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
927
Reaction score
207
Happens every year. High schools, university, etc. all contribute ridership to the TTC. Whenever they are out of school, like summer break, the schedules get adjusted for less people. It gets re-adjusted after Labour Day for increases in ridership.

Check this link for TTC updates to the routes.

In Toronto, high school students (and now expanded to other students) get student TTC ID cards, so they can use the student discount on the TTC. This is different than in the states, where they use school buses to transport high school students. There are school buses for some high school kids, but the majority do not use school buses. See this link for complete information.

When I was a student, I could only use the student fare before 5 PM and only during school days. Today, students can use the student fare all day and all year.

I grew up here. I remember lining up to get student passes - I believe they charged $10. I also remember when you didn't have them the TTC collector would lock the bar, tap on the glasses and bark at you: STUDENT PASS, as if anyone else at 3:30 with a back pack was going to try and cheat the TTC out of a buck.

That being said - I don't remember a TTC summer schedule - and your link doesn't really articulate one? It says they're adapting the Scarborough bus route for the zoo's hours, which is not really a TTC "we're on summer hours" since schools are out. I would imagine some of the specific destination related routes, like the Scarborough route to the zoo (or the ex streetcar), have summer hours related to tourists but I've never heard of a summer schedule for the majority of the TTC trunk routes (Bath, Eglinton, Dufferin) nor for the subway. While students certainly are great users of transit - on our major routes I'm not sure if they are the main contributors to crowding. Also most students go to schools fairly close to their houses.
 

Top