News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

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.

I think you live in some parallel universe/Utopian society. This is Canada. It is cold 8 months of the year and unbearably cold 4 months of the year. Commerce thrives on convenience. Cars are convenient. I love my car and use it to get to and from the deepest. densest centre of the city. I pay enormous parking costs for this convenience. I would lose half my business if people weren't able to drive and park as would probably half the retailers in this city. You my friend are very idealistic when it comes to how a city like Toronto functions. It is an extremely car dependent city. Public transit is a priority that should continuously be upgraded to accommodate as much pedestrian traffic as possible but we are never going to give up the convenience of the automobile and continue to thrive economically. Not in -20 degree weather.

Your point #2 would destroy the local economy in virtual lock-step with the added burden on drivers. I don't support it.

What I do support however is the notion of more fuel efficient, smaller, safer cars. Let there be a punitive tax on vehicles by size or fuel efficiency. That makes more sense to me.
 
"Cold 8 months of the year and unbearably cold 4 months of the year"? Why do proponents of driving over other forms of transportation always pretend like we live in a Siberian hellscape?

Fact: Despite having a particularly harsh winter this year, it didn't really start getting cold until January.

Fact: Downtown retail business is not dependent on customers arriving via their cars.

Fact: There's no more room for cars downtown.

Fact: Road pricing is inevitable.
 
Just following freshcutgrass' Priority #3 should be the automobile sharing concept. Instead of everyone having their own personal car, share a car for the times needed to take home your new toilet, drywall, or new television.

The time of having a personal car for each member of the family is over. A family car may still be around, but now we should be using public transit instead of a second or third car.
 
"Cold 8 months of the year and unbearably cold 4 months of the year"? Why do proponents of driving over other forms of transportation always pretend like we live in a Siberian hellscape?

Fact: Despite having a particularly harsh winter this year, it didn't really start getting cold until January.

Fact: Downtown retail business is not dependent on customers arriving via their cars.

Fact: There's no more room for cars downtown.

Fact: Road pricing is inevitable.

None of these are facts. They are merely your opinions. I disagree with all of them.


It's cold from October-May.

Close off on downtown streets to cars for a few months and let's see how many businesses are still around.

No more room for cars? Are you kidding? Have you visited New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Paris, Toyko, Mumbai, Moscow, Milan, etc?

Road pricing as you call it has never been seriously proposed although I believe tolling is an option that comes up occasionally.

Love my car, not giving it up and not feeling the least bit of guilt over it either. It's convenient, fast, comfortable, allows for extended private telephone discussions and business teleconferences and ya, it's fun to drive too!

I also love biking, running and walking. But not all the time and when it's far more convenient to drive. I would say my views represent the majority.
 
Last edited:
Temperature doesn't have much effect, if any, on people's mode of transport. Despite the much colder climate, Canadian cities have much higher transit ridership than US cities, and one-third of the people of Copenhagen bike to work.

Transit doesn't effect economic development. Are cities in the US less economically developed because they have poor public transit? Less public transit = poorer people?

Transit allows roads to be smaller and cities to be denser. Maybe it seems like the congestion is the same, but that's only because there are less roads and more people in the same space. But if number roads and people stay constant, congestion goes down with transit.
 
I think you live in some parallel universe/Utopian society.

I've heard Parkdale referred to as a number of things...that's never been one of them.


Commerce thrives on convenience. Cars are convenient.

And like all conveniences, they come with a price tag. All I'm saying is, that if you think the rest of society is going to keep subsidizing the conveniences of car drivers, it is you who are living in some kind of post-war, Mad Men induced Utopia.

I love my car and use it to get to and from the deepest. densest centre of the city. I pay enormous parking costs for this convenience.

If you are parking in a private parking lot in the downtown core, then I'm sure you are. But the cost of owning and operating a private vehicle is not a municipal service, and therefore...your responsibility. The road system you use to travel around on IS a city service, and you aren't paying nearly enough for using it.

Parking on public streets is another under-charged service to car drivers. Car drivers want to travel on the streets...and they want to park on the streets....people want to park for FREE!!! then bitch about streetcars????????????

Just last week, I was talking to an old friend, and he mentioned how expensive his street parking permit was...$120 a YEAR. I said hmmm....ok...that's 32 cents a day (24 hours), to park your car out in front of your house on public property. He owns two houses on the street 3 doors apart...each house has a garage in the back. His wife parks her car in the one garage, and the other garage is used to store shit...and he parks his truck on the street. I said it can't be that expensive, if you have 3 parking spots on your own property you can use for free, yet choose to park on the street and pay for the permit instead.

Would someone let you park on their private property in downtown Toronto for 32 cents a day? I don't effing think so. So why is the city? Street parking fees are way too low....no wonder it's hard to find a parking spot....it's not priced properly.



I would lose half my business if people weren't able to drive and park as would probably half the retailers in this city. You my friend are very idealistic when it comes to how a city like Toronto functions. It is an extremely car dependent city.

First of all, I'm not suggesting we get rid of cars...just that it be priced accordingly and fairly. People are still going to be doing what they are doing now, only it will be the ones willing to pay the higher cost of doing it....and there's plenty of them.

And no, Toronto is not a car-dependent city...it is a transit-dependent city. The road system simply does not have the capacity to sustain the economic activity of Toronto if it were not for transit. Half (or more than half) of the businesses would either simply not exist, or be much smaller because of this fact. Congestion pricing ALWAYS results in a modal shift towards public transit. The problem is, Toronto's transit system is also at capacity during rush hours.

How do you expand transit service and capacity if the city is not financially self-sustaining? You don't do it by increasing users fees for transit, and cut service to transit...and then give tax breaks to car drivers at the same time. That's just bad business. And as a business man, you should understand this.

Hey...I'm not one of those people who hates cars...I like them (although I don't use one). If I were wealthy, I'd be driven everywhere in the back of a vintage Mercedes 600 Pullman (the one with privacy curtains rather than tinted glass....so much classier IMHO). Only I would PAY the real cost of doing it.
 
If you are parking in a private parking lot in the downtown core, then I'm sure you are. But the cost of owning and operating a private vehicle is not a municipal service, and therefore...your responsibility. The road system you use to travel around on IS a city service, and you aren't paying nearly enough for using it.

That's right. It's a city service that I pay for through my property taxes. If you want to start piece-meal charging for services how about we charge homeless people extra for shelter visits, the handicap for their parking spaces, and the mentally ill for psychiatric care? I don't use any of these services so I should therefore get a break from the City using your logic. And all those city parks- I never use them so why I should I subsidize all those park loving nature lovers for their tree hugging? It's not fair! And Caribana- I've never been to that either. I want a refund on my property tax! [sarcasm added]
 
It's cold from October-May.

Please tell me you're exaggerating.
The average temperature in October is 15C, May is 18C, April is 11.
That is not cold by any means.

"Love my car, not giving it up and not feeling the least bit of guilt over it either. It's convenient, fast, comfortable, allows for extended private telephone discussions and business teleconferences and ya, it's fun to drive too!"

It's a luxury not an essential service. And last i checked you pay for such luxury. I drive a car as well and won't give it up that easily. However, i accept the fact that we are spoiled here in NA when it comes to the automobile issue.
The governments need to increase taxes based on engine sizes. Anything above 3L needs to be taxed and anything above 4L needs to be heavilly taxed.
 
Why do all threads have to degenerate into a pissing match between car lovers and car haters?

Let's have a controlled experiment on one street for a given distance with regard to testing all these charges and counter charges about who subsidizes whom.

Drivers, cyclists, walkers and transit riders are all required to pay a fixed amount per kilometre for the use of the city streets and sidewalks but they must pay the full cost of any vehicle they choose to use if any.

Currently pedestrians pay nothing for the use of tax payers streets and sidewalks and that has to stop.
Cyclists pay nothing for the use of tax payers streets and sidewalks and that has to stop.
Transit riders pay only 70% of the cost of the vehicle and nothing for the use of the tax payers streets and that has to stop.
Drivers pay the complete cost of their vehicles and pay for a portion of the cost of the tax payers streets through licencing, parking fees and gas tax. That seems fair even if it is a hell of a lot more than the other users..
 
Last edited:
That's right. It's a city service that I pay for through my property taxes.

There aren't enough tax dollars collected to sustain city services (and no...there are no imaginary "gravy trains" to make up the difference). Car drivers take up a disproportionate amount of the city budget to continue to have "everybody" subsidize what a large portion (and growing) of the city is not doing.


If you want to start piece-meal charging for services how about we charge homeless people extra for shelter visits,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume this was just a joke.

the handicap for their parking spaces

Providing services to the disabled isn't just a social service...it gives them better employment and consumer opportunities. Unemployed people consume more government services than employed people do. But again, this example must be a joke.

and the mentally ill for psychiatric care?

Nobody chooses to be mentally ill. Car drivers have a choice


And all those city parks- I never use them so why I should I subsidize all those park loving nature lovers for their tree hugging?

We aren't trying to reduce park usage, and parks add to the prosperity of the city and environment...not take away from it.

And Caribana- I've never been to that either

I don't think a few hundred thousand dollars invested in an event that pumps more than $400 million into the local economy is a bad investment. And you don't have to attend the festival to reap the benefits of that.


I don't use any of these services so I should therefore get a break from the City using your logic

None of your examples follow my logic at all.

Does your choice to use your car to commute around the city provide any net benefit to the city? No
Does it cause a large, disproportional cost to the city? Yes
I'm not asking you to stop doing it, I'm just saying we all can't afford to subsidize it at the rate we still do.

You know why Rob Ford hasn't found any "Gravy Trains" ?

Because he's driving it.
 
What an altogether absurd thing to say.

Absurd? That's the extent of your argument? The only thing that's absurd is when people make bold claims without proof, and then call other people absurd when they don't believe such claims, without even bothering to make a proper argument.

So show us the proof. Show us the statistics that prove that there is a positive correlation between public transit ridership and the level of economic development.
 

Back
Top