[doady]

I always took that seriously. It was the pc crowd that was up in arms. All they were hearing was 'no more immigrants.' They weren't even paying attention to the context. What he said makes perfect sense. The TTC is a joke and under developed, our roads are congested beyond belief. How could we possibly accept any more people at this time? People need to examine what he said from a logical standpoint rather than letting their emotions do their thinking. There are currently a dozen large condos approved for my immediate area and traffic is already at a standstill in the morning and evenings. I can't imagine what it's going to be like once these are completed and the inevitable influx of more immigrants to come. It seems to be people from downtown that are generally more pro-immigration, from my experience. Could that be because immigrants are forced to live in the suburbs? So as long as it doesn't effect them, they don't care how many come? It's easy to be in favour of mass immigration when you don't have to share the already packed roads with them. Would downtowners still feel the same if immigrants/refugees all lived in their neighbourhoods, making their commute slower? I'm by no means against immigration, I just think we allow too many, too hastily rather than allowing a slow progression. Until our infrastructure is upgraded and expanded I think we need to slow down the process. Like Rob said, we can't even look after our own citizens. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. Another thing that I don't understand is the 'we need more immigrants because the birth rate is declining' argument. That couldn't be more untrue. Canadians simply need to have more children. We need to ask ourselves why the birth rate among Canadians has dropped. Is it due to our high taxes, real estate prices, general expensiveness of living in this country? I think that plays a large role. It's hard enough for married couples to support themselves, let alone large families like they did in the past, hence you're seeing a lot more parents having 1 or 2 children, max. Most couples now both work full time because it's now necessary just to make an average living, so that leaves less time for raising children. Why don't we address these issues instead of surrendering to immigration as the only resolution?

Wouldn't more children exacerbate the city's littering problem though? Seeing as they're the main culprit behind it and all... If littering is bad now with so few children, imagine how astronomical the problem would be with lots of children. The city would become unbearable.

 

[gristle]

Certain people within all cities, yes. Some would prefer numbers to remain close to what they already are. I'm not pleased about all the condo development going on in my neighbourhood as it's already fairly busy, but still pretty peaceful and quiet in spots. That's all about to change. I forget the exact number, but I think it's something like 6000 people that will be moving into my neighbourhood within the next few years. It's going to get a lot noisier and there's going to be a lot more litter, and I can't even imagine how much worse the traffic will be.

It's a really big country and you don't have to live in a part you don't like.

 

[John Revolta]

Wouldn't more children exacerbate the city's littering problem though? Seeing as they're the main culprit behind it and all... If littering is bad now with so few children, imagine how astronomical the problem would be with lots of children. The city would become unbearable.

What's your point? Immigrants bring their children or give birth to them here and generally in larger numbers than Canadians. Littering is going to be a problem forever, even if children were at a minimum.

 

[John Revolta]

It's a really big country and you don't have to live in a part you don't like.

But I do like where I live. I love it actually and why should I have to move? I've lived in the same area my entire life.

 

[John Revolta]

For those of you that live downtown, would you be just as accepting of large numbers of immigrants/refugees if they all lived in your proximity without more TTC lines built, and more buses/streetcars? Be honest and don't be afraid of what others might say. Think of how much of an inconvenience that would be for you each day. People have no patience and have the attention span of a gnat these days. It would only add to the collective headache of our lives. We're busy enough as it is and far too stressed out. How many new immigrants even live downtown? Like I said, it's easy for you to want more when it doesn't effect your daily commute as much. If we ever get our subway system in order and expanded across the entire city, then we can increase our population. From a completely mobile standpoint, how can the current influx of immigration be a success? It's already not working as our congestion is exceptionally pathetic. And it's not just the highways that are packed solid. York Mills in the morning is completely lethargic. It takes ages to move even twenty yards. It's a lot easier getting to your destination when you live downtown because everything is laid out conveniently close. I don't have a disdain for immigrants or anything against them or their values. I'm only sick of how long it takes to get around during rush hour. People are fed up with two hour commutes to and from work everyday.

 

[gristle]

For those of you that live downtown, would you be just as accepting of large numbers of immigrants/refugees if they all lived in your proximity without more TTC lines built, and more buses/streetcars?

As the Canadian-born person of one immigrant and one refugee to this country I have to take exception to the evident "us and them" attitude that comes through in your postings. I live downtown and many of my neighbours are the same people who share the TTC, the sidewalks and the roads with me. Many of them are, like me, the children of immigrants or came to Canada earlier in their lives as immigrants, so I just can't see what your issue is on this topic (other than you blame immigration for your commute time).

People have no patience and have the attention span of a gnat these days.

I gotta say, I love generalizations like this. It provides wonderful context for your statements. Anyway, back to the other stuff.

How many new immigrants even live downtown? Like I said, it's easy for you to want more when it doesn't effect your daily commute as much.

Many new immigrants live downtown. And by the way, immigrants don't cause transit congestion. You were onto something when you raised the need for more transit, but you get it backwards by suggesting that immigration should somehow be based on transit capacity. Transit must be planned and built to reflect its present and future use - regardless of whether the user is Canadian-born or otherwise.

From a completely mobile standpoint, how can the current influx of immigration be a success?

What does this mean?

It's already not working as our congestion is exceptionally pathetic.

People have been raising the red flag regarding congestion and the need for increased transit capacity for years. The problem isn't immigration - or even more transit users in general - it is the lack of adequate investment in transit by senior levels of government, so quit blaming immigrants. It's not like immigration is a new phenomenon in Canada.

And it's not just the highways that are packed solid.

Count how many cars have a single occupant inside them. That might help you understand part of why highways are packed. At the same time, if traffic isn't moving, you can always ask the drivers if they are immigrants or not.

It's a lot easier getting to your destination when you live downtown because everything is laid out conveniently close.

Then you should move to a place where everything is conveniently close - like downtown. But do be aware: immigrants lurk on every corner.

I don't have a disdain for immigrants or anything against them or their values. I'm only sick of how long it takes to get around during rush hour.

It's wonderful that you view yourself as a paragon of tolerance, but once again you appear to hold immigrants responsible for congestion and your lengthy commute. Congestion is addressed in part by adding transit capacity (like Transit City and a DRL).

Maybe you could now answer the question about whether you drive or use the TTC? At the same time, how about indicating what part of the city you live in?

 

[John Revolta]

You're missing my point. I'm not blaming congestion on immigration. Most of it is due to our own citizens. Our government is to blame. What I am saying is that allowing the population to grow so vastly, in short periods of time, without making adequate adjustments to the TTC/roads for our current population and future planning for those to come, is making matters worse. Immigration isn't the problem, it just adds to it. More people, more traffic jams. People moving here from other parts of Canada also add to the chaos. We know the city is expanding at a fast rate, but we're not prescient of the need for better/more transit to be in place for that growth to happen seamlessly. Carpooling sounds like a good idea on paper, but if it isn't mandatory for all drivers then those that partake still need to get through those traffic jams to pick up their passengers, which in turn would slow them down even more. If the TTC spanned the entire city and we constructed more roads/highways then I'd see nothing wrong with building the population.

I rarely use the TTC. I mostly drive. I live in North York.

 

[T-Bor]

I lived my entire life in North York and have never gone to a school that was a majority of white people. Pretty much all of NY has a lot of immigrants but my area (Fairview Mall) I would argue has far more than the average. My high school was about 10% white. What I find strange about some of the arguments made is that immigrants cause more traffic congestion - the vast majority of my friends who were either born abroad, or parents born abroad, couldn't afford to have a car, or if they did, it's because they lived with family in a 7-8 person house and pooled resources to get one car. If anything, most immigrants moving to Toronto (the city proper at least) are reducing congestion if anything.

 

[freshcutgrass]

People are fed up with two hour commutes to and from work everyday.

I don't think they are.

If they were, they wouldn't be doing it. Since they are volunteering to do it, they are simply choosing to pay the price (in their time) for their priorities. Where you live...where you work...how you get yourself around are all YOUR choices.


More roads...more public transit is not going to relieve traffic congestion. Traffic congestion was bad 50 years ago...is bad now...and will be bad 50 years from now, and it matters not a bit how much road or transit capacity we build. Manhattan, London, Paris, etc, etc. are nothing but a maze of subways running everywhere with massive capacities. Has that solved their traffic congestion problem? Hardly. The purpose or effect of public transit has never been, nor will ever be, to relieve traffic congestion. As long as there are personal cars, and people who like to drive them, there will be traffic congestion. The purpose and effect of public transit is to increase economic development of a given area beyond the capacity of the roads to deliver people to and from it in "cars".

 

[GraphicMatt]

I think within Toronto there's a lot we can do to make people's commutes easier but, yeah, trying to improve suburban -> urban commutes is a losing game. Some people just need to move closer to where they work. (Rise of 'reversing commuting' is a problem too.)

 

[doady]

I don't think they are.

If they were, they wouldn't be doing it. Since they are volunteering to do it, they are simply choosing to pay the price (in their time) for their priorities. Where you live...where you work...how you get yourself around are all YOUR choices.


More roads...more public transit is not going to relieve traffic congestion. Traffic congestion was bad 50 years ago...is bad now...and will be bad 50 years from now, and it matters not a bit how much road or transit capacity we build. Manhattan, London, Paris, etc, etc. are nothing but a maze of subways running everywhere with massive capacities. Has that solved their traffic congestion problem? Hardly.

Are you saying that the level of traffic congestion in Manhattan, London, and Paris would be the same without public transit?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Are you saying that the level of traffic congestion in Manhattan, London, and Paris would be the same without public transit?

No...I'm saying the economic development would be smaller as well as the traffic congestion being about the same.

 

[W. K. Lis]

No...I'm saying the economic development would be smaller as well as the traffic congestion being about the same.

How long will people pay for traffic congestion? If the price at the pump (excluding the other costs) keeps going up, at what point do they give up and look for a place close to public transit as an alternative. See this link.

 

[OttoSchloss]

If we paid what Europeans pay for petrol everyone would be living much closer to downtown and using public transportation a lot more.

 

[freshcutgrass]

If we paid what Europeans pay for petrol everyone would be living much closer to downtown and using public transportation a lot more.

I'm not sure how expensive owning and operating a car will have to get before it actually illuminates "congestion". Traffic always seems to reach an equilibrium that is "congested" no matter what you do. Cities where it is far more costlier than Toronto to own and operate a personal car still have congestion...and usually worse than Toronto. Sure, part of this is do to built environments with less road capacity, but there's always enough people willing to pay the price in dollars and time to cause congestion. There's a limit to this, but what it is I don't know.

There are only two ways to lower traffic congestion that I can think of....

1...Stop attracting so many people. This is achieved by an economic collapse. This won't just solve traffic congestion, but transit over-crowding too. Downtown Detroit has solved it's traffic congestion problem!!

2...Price it accordingly. As long as more people want to use a limited service (roads) than that limited service can handle efficiently, it's priced too low. Start pricing the use of roads to the point where the level of traffic reaches a "healthy" medium (whatever that is...I have no idea).

Option #1 is a clear case of the cure being worse than the disease, so perhaps we should avoid that one.

The only viable option is #2.

While using the roads is not "free", as our municipal taxes cover the costs of operating & maintaining them, there is no user fee for using this city-provided service. But the gap between who is using this limited resource efficiently and those who do not is far too wide to have everyone effectively pay the same fee (free). You have to start prioritizing who is using the road transportation system efficiently (and this includes the sidewalks) and charging accordingly.

Priority #1 would be pedestrians (and cyclists). They don't cause noise pollution...they don't cause air pollution, they rarely cause property damage or injuries...they cause little wear and tear to the road system...they are being healthier, and therefore lowering health care costs..they don't slow down emergency vehicles (fire, ambulance, police)....and sometimes they are very funny to watch, providing a form of entertainment (especially here in Parkdale he he) So...they can continue to use for free.

Priority #2 would be public transit. Since this is by far more efficient use of the road than any other form of vehicle transportation on the streets, and something we actually want to encourage more use of, then this should also be free (since public transit is owned and operated municipally anyway, it makes no sense to pay yourself).

Priority #3 would be delivery vehicles. The economy requires the movement of goods, so these should also be free.

Last priority is private cars. Since this is least effect use of limited road space and the major cause of congestion, injuries, damage to roads and pollution, they should have to pay the highest price.

We were on the right track with the $60 vehicle registration fee (although too small to make much difference), but our new mayor has his priorities mixed up, so that got given back to drivers (at the expense of transit users, who will have to have service cuts instead).

Does it make any sense to 100% subsidize one city service (roads) to car drivers whom we are trying to discourage because of congestion, and then make transit users pay 70-80% of the cost of a city service in up-front user fees when it's something we are trying to encourage more use of?

So...as a city, we are NOT interested in reducing traffic congestion, because we are unwilling to do what it takes to actually achieve this goal.