[M II A II R II K]

And it's not like in US cities where people think that the opening of subway stations invites inner city crime and black people to their neighbourhoods.

 

[rbt]

And it's not like in US cities where people think that the opening of subway stations invites inner city crime and black people to their neighbourhoods.

There's no shortage of that line of thought here, just not tied to subway stations (though one wonders about opposition to Willowdale Station).

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/07/29/neighbours_fight_parkette_at_jane_and_sheppard_hume.html

 

[Euphoria]

The transit only approach, without highways, is naive and ineffectual. This isn't the 1970's and no one is planning to level neighborhoods to build the Spadina Expressway. We've never run a highway underground in Toronto and it shows. People here think they're engineering marvels. It's the same limited perspective that can't imagine a Sky Train instead of a subway where a lighter form of rail is perfectly appropriate. These same people who want elaborate subway systems at the exclusion of other options have no idea to to pay for them. Take advantage of the people who are willing to pay tolls on new highways to fund your transit dream. Otherwise, we're back to raising your taxes and transit fares.

 

[W. K. Lis]

As was mentioned congestion is really never a good thing, if we want to de-congest our roads the way to do it is to get people out of cars and into transit. As far as the comment about moving when a subway station opens up well I think that's pretty anecdotal and a major minority. Your cousins husband will move out and 1000 people will move into the condo tower built on the land he sold for a filthy profit .

Must be the Willowdale neighbourhood. They were against a "Willowdale" subway station when the Line 4 Sheppard Line was in the planning stage.

 

[lead82]

Must be the Willowdale neighbourhood. They were against a "Willowdale" subway station when the Line 4 Sheppard Line was in the planning stage.

They were right then and they are right now. There is no need for a stop there. The current and future growth there are not sufficient for a station there. It can barely support the 98 bus that comes every 30mins.

 

[Tuck]

The transit only approach, without highways, is naive and ineffectual. This isn't the 1970's and no one is planning to level neighborhoods to build the Spadina Expressway. We've never run a highway underground in Toronto and it shows. People here think they're engineering marvels. It's the same limited perspective that can't imagine a Sky Train instead of a subway where a lighter form of rail is perfectly appropriate. These same people who want elaborate subway systems at the exclusion of other options have no idea to to pay for them. Take advantage of the people who are willing to pay tolls on new highways to fund your transit dream. Otherwise, we're back to raising your taxes and transit fares.

Again, we already have highways. You're proposing building more for the sake of building more. Please explain the benefit you see in doing so. Also please explain how you plan to get residents to accept a freeway under their homes.

Now, one thing I missed in my post above is that one thing transit can't help with is freight - you do need highways for that - thats a big economic factor in favour of highway development.

But again, we have lots of highways.

 

[Leo_Chan]

What we need is proper commuter rail that follows all North-South and East-West Highways, as well as some that go Northeast to Southwest and Northwest to Southeast. This will make an X Plus Box that follows the major highways. I know this definitely won't happen though

 

[mdrejhon]

What we need is proper commuter rail that follows all North-South and East-West Highways, as well as some that go Northeast to Southwest and Northwest to Southeast. This will make an X Plus Box that follows the major highways. I know this definitely won't happen though
View attachment 96149

We are at a waterfront, so cut that image in half. If we run service on the CanPa and the North Toronto then your top half just kinda sketched our theoretical GO RER network. Throw in the DRL-long and DRL-west and the LRTs, and we're finally getting there.

 

[Leo_Chan]

We are at a waterfront, so cut that image in half. If we run service on the CanPa and the North Toronto then your top half just kinda sketched our theoretical GO RER network. Throw in the DRL-long and DRL-west and the LRTs, and we're finally getting there.

The spoke-grid layout I'm proposing is not suppose to be biased around the downtown core, it should be centred to slightly southern GTA. GO and RER get people to and from union, but what I'm proposing is just corridors for general commuting, not just to Union Station.

 

[ssiguy2]

I completely disagree with the idea that "the only way to de-congest our roads is to get people out of their cars and onto transit".

I, of course, completely agree with transit expansion but I am under no illusion that it will de-congest our roads. This has been proven time and again that this idea has no basis in fact. Providing mass/rapid transit will NEVER de-congest our roads nor should it been seen or advocated for under such a scenario.

The most they do is provide very short-term relief but that usually fades after 1 or maximum 2 years. The initial drop in congestion is automatically reversed as more people see the highway as an option..........induced demand and the road becomes as congested a it always has. GO ridership has increased greatly over the last 10 years but so has congestion.

Toronto is a congested city and it will only get worse. For Toronto congestion is here and it's here to stay. Mass/rapid transit is there to make sure that there are truly viable options than buying a car or sitting in endless traffic for hours on end. The idea of building transit to relieve congestion makes for good politics and can be used as a rationalization of spending the money but the reality is very different.

 

[steveintoronto]

I completely disagree with the idea that "the only way to de-congest our roads is to get people out of their cars and onto transit".

I, of course, completely agree with transit expansion but I am under no illusion that it will de-congest our roads. This has been proven time and again that this idea has no basis in fact. Providing mass/rapid transit will NEVER de-congest our roads nor should it been seen or advocated for under such a scenario.

Uh huh. You're right. It's a congestion charge that's gonna do it:

(Since this was published four years ago, even more successes have been reported and established by studies)(Oxford Street has not only banished cars, next is to banish buses due to their fumes)

Has London's congestion charge worked?
By Claire Timms BBC News, London

• 15 February 2013
• From the section London

The biggest congestion charge scheme to launch in any city got off to a smooth start on the morning of 17 February 2003, much to the surprise of London's then mayor Ken Livingstone.

A decade on he readily admits it was the only thing in his entire political career that "turned out better than I expected".

Motorists travelling into central London on that Monday morning faced the new £5 daily charge, and by the afternoon 57,000 had paid it.

The RAC reported there was not the anticipated early rush of drivers trying to get across the eight-square mile zone before 7am - the time the charge came in.

'Political cowardice'
Mr Livingstone said: "What was amazing was nothing went wrong.

"We'd expected we'd have quite a few bits of congestion on the periphery, but we couldn't find a single point where the traffic didn't flow.

"The only real problem we had were the buses were all running so ahead of schedule they had to wait at the bus stop for a couple minutes."

At the time officials from 30 other British cities were reported to be considering introducing congestion charges if London's scheme was successful.

That never happened and, further afield, the only cities to adopt a similar scheme since are Milan and Stockholm.

Mr Livingstone believes there are two reasons: political cowardice and "modern" cities built after the introduction of the car that do not need a congestion charge.

He said: "If it wasn't for the Republicans, who control the New York State Assembly, Manhattan island would have one. Mayor Bloomberg really wants to do it but he can't get the votes.

"In Manchester the politicians were so nervous they said: 'we'll have a referendum first'.

"If I'd had a referendum first, with all the hysteria in the newspapers - I had two and a half years of newspapers saying it would be a disaster - you'd never have got it through. It was all doom and gloom.

"Political cowardice is always going to be a problem: people think they might lose votes if they do it - but very few cities actually need it."

Mr Livingstone now sees pollution as London's biggest challenge.

Low-emission zone
"We've all woken up to the fact that in London over 4,000 people die prematurely every year because of the air quality - that's worse than 9/11," he said.

"We're not just talking about a few elderly people dying a few months early. On average they're dying 11 years early.

"We've got to tackle it - that's the low-emission zone and Boris [Johnson] should be pressing ahead very rapidly and tightening up on diesel vehicles."

Although he scrapped the scheme's western extension zone when he succeeded Mr Livingstone in 2010, Mr Johnson has described the original scheme as a success which had benefited London.

On Wednesday he announced his vision to see the world's first "Ultra Low Emission Zone", meaning by 2020 only zero or low-emission cars would be allowed into central London. Time will tell if the argument for what seems a radical change can be won.

And although the congestion charge - which was also seen as a radical step a decade ago - has won over many of the original doubters, there are still those who claim it has not been a success.

According to TfL figures, traffic levels over the past 10 years have gone down by 10.2% but journey times for drivers have remained flat since 2007.

Barry Neil, whose east London-based company Ambient Computer Services travels into central London daily delivering computer equipment, claims this is evidence the congestion charge has failed.

He said: "We said when it launched it wasn't going to make any difference and unfortunately it hasn't.

"If it made it easier to drive through London, then great. But it doesn't. The jams are just as bad and it costs us £5,000 a year."

However, Elliot Jacobs, managing director of office supplies firm UOE, disagrees.

"Getting deliveries on time is really important and the congestion charge means we have a consistency of traffic flow and a reliability that we know where the traffic's going to be, and that's important.

"It means we can get there on time and that's worth £10 every day."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-21451245

Five international cities that have tolls or congestion charges for drivers

By: Staff The Canadian Press Published on Thu Nov 24 2016
TORONTO — The mayor of Toronto wants to impose a toll on two major highways into and out of Canada's most populous city. Mayor John Tory argues the tolls on the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway will provide much-needed funds for transit expansion and road repair, and help ease congestion.

Here are five other major cities around the world that have implemented tolls or congestion charges. The prices listed are for two-axle vehicles and have been converted into Canadian dollars.

___

SAN FRANCISCO — Car drivers coming into the city on the Golden Gate Bridge must pay a toll fee of $10.12. Drivers with a FasTrak pass pay $8.77.

NEW YORK CITY — Cash tolls of $20 are collected for cars entering New York City on two tunnels and four bridges.

LONDON — The United Kingdom's capital charges a congestion fee of $19.33 per day to drive in central London on weekdays between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.

STOCKHOLM — The Swedish capital has a congestion charge for drivers on weekdays during the daytime, except during the month of July, with a maximum charge of $15.31 per day.

SINGAPORE — Singapore has had an electronic toll collection system since the late 1980s in an effort to curb traffic. Prices for local cars that pass through certain checkpoints in central Singapore range from $3.01 to $3.58. Foreign vehicles are charged $32.97 per day if they pass through the checkpoints between 2 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. It is also an offence to keep a foreign-registered vehicle in the city for more than 14 days.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...-tolls-or-congestion-charges-for-drivers.html

 

[Tuck]

I completely disagree with the idea that "the only way to de-congest our roads is to get people out of their cars and onto transit".

I, of course, completely agree with transit expansion but I am under no illusion that it will de-congest our roads. This has been proven time and again that this idea has no basis in fact. Providing mass/rapid transit will NEVER de-congest our roads nor should it been seen or advocated for under such a scenario.

The most they do is provide very short-term relief but that usually fades after 1 or maximum 2 years. The initial drop in congestion is automatically reversed as more people see the highway as an option..........induced demand and the road becomes as congested a it always has. GO ridership has increased greatly over the last 10 years but so has congestion.

Toronto is a congested city and it will only get worse. For Toronto congestion is here and it's here to stay. Mass/rapid transit is there to make sure that there are truly viable options than buying a car or sitting in endless traffic for hours on end. The idea of building transit to relieve congestion makes for good politics and can be used as a rationalization of spending the money but the reality is very different.

Absolutely.

So as Steve says above, lets toll the roads and make lots of money.

 

[steveintoronto]

Further to the impending ban of diesel buses on Oxford Street in London UK (and be aware there's already a tube line under it, and Crossrail about to open, it's not like pedestrians will be left w/o options) I've chosen this article, one of reams of many available on-line, as it is recent and viewed through American eyes:

Can London mayor's car ban solve pollution crisis?
By Kieron Monks, for CNN

Updated 6:10 AM ET, Mon September 12, 2016

Photos: Crackdown on cars in the capital
'World's dirtiest street' – Oxford Street in London is the busiest street in London, and also among the most polluted. New Mayor of London Sadiq Khan plans to ban vehicles on the 1.2 mile highway and create a tree-lined shoppers' paradise.

Story highlights

• Sadiq Khan plans vehicle free areas of central London
• Almost 10,000 people killed by air pollution each year in the city
• Cities across the world now going vehicle free

(CNN)During peak hours, Oxford Street barely moves. The road becomes a red wall of steel as buses grind to a halt, and the pavement overflows with squashed shoppers and tourists.

But new Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has a plan to transform the capital's busiest street into an urban oasis. From 2020, vehicles will be banished from the 1.2-mile highway.

"The vision is for there to be a street lined with trees and pedestrian squares, and change the whole experience," Khan told CNN.

Around four million people visit Oxford Street each week, London's retail heartland, which generates over £5 billion ($6.6bn) a year.

But in addition to being London's busiest street, it is among the dirtiest. Oxford Street has served as a thoroughfare for buses and taxis since the 19th century, with up to 300 double-deckers crawling along it during rush hour, often using high-polluting diesel engines.

In 2014, a leading air quality expert found the world's highest concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) on Oxford Street, a pollutant generated by diesel fumes that causes lung disease and respiratory problems.

Such conditions are illegal, Khan notes, with the British government currently facing a lawsuit over breaching EU air quality limits.

"If you look at legal requirements on levels of Nitrogen Dioxide in particular, Oxford Street gets in the first week of January what it should in an entire year," he says. "That's one of the reason why there's an urgency to air quality plans."

Londoners pay a high price for the filthy air, which kills almost 10,000 citizens a year. In the worst hotspots, children grow up with stunted lungs, and cases of asthma and heart disease increase.

Up to 300 buses travel along Oxford Street during peak hours, making it the most polluted in the world by some measures.

The plan

Khan is himself a victim of London's modern plague, having been diagnosed with adult-onset asthma. He was elected in June on the promise of a "greener, cleaner" London, and the vehicle ban on Oxford Street is a cornerstone of this vision.

The idea has been considered since the 1970s, when heavy restrictions were introduced on private cars, but further advances have been thwarted, often by local businesses concerned about deterring consumers.

Circumstances now appear more favorable, with the powerful New West End Company retail group offering guarded support for a "vehicle free" zone, and Khan believes he can please all stakeholders.

"We are working closely with the retailers, the council, the residents, and we want to phase the project in a number of stages to reduce disruption," he says.
The plan is to initially cut 40% of buses on Oxford Street, ahead of opening a new tube network - the Elizabeth Line - in 2018, which will include stations at either end of the street. City Hall will then embark on an overhaul of bus routes across London to divert the remaining buses.

The ban will be implemented in two parts, initially covering half of the street from Tottenham Court Road to Oxford Circus, and then up to Marble Arch. New taxi ranks will be installed on side streets to support disabled access.

The traffic jams would then be replaced with a tree-lined boulevard, offering a blank slate for new possibilities from new pop-up stores and markets to "oasis spaces" for weary shoppers.

Instant impact

If the vehicle ban can be implemented, there is reason to believe it can have a swift and powerful health impact.

The Champs Elysee in Paris saw a 30% reduction in NO2 after a one-day partial car ban in the city.

"If the traffic is stopped the pollution falls immediately," says Frank Kelly, professor of environmental health at King's College London. "In years to come the health benefits will be considerable."

Clearing the street should also bring economic rewards. The new tube stations are expected to bring in millions more visitors than existing transport services, and generate a further £1 billion ($1.33bn) a year.

Complete package

The plans for Oxford Street are part of a wider package of air quality reforms.

Khan also hopes to apply a vehicle ban around Parliament Square in Westminster, building on the success of similar schemes in Trafalgar Square and South Kensington.

He has bought forward plans for an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to 2019, and will extend it beyond the city center. The ULEZ will impose new emission limits on vehicles in line with EU standards, and a charge for non-compliant vehicles.

The citywide overhaul of buses will see the fleet transitioned to low emission engines from 2018, including a new fleet of electric vehicles, with new taxis required to adopt zero emission systems.

The mayor also intends to spur innovation among business leaders, and will host a conference with bus manufacturers.

"I will say 'if you can design buses that are electric, hydrogen, or hybrid cell...we are the biggest purchasers around,'" says Khan. [...continues in detail...]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/world/sadiq-khan-london-pollution/

 

[steveintoronto]

Here is the news release of the New West End Company: (We are a leading business partnership for London’s West End, representing more than 600 businesses behind the world’s largest retail destination.) http://newwestend.com/

http://newwestend.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/pedestrianisationstatement.pdf

Odd that, not clamouring for more expressways to the heart of London. Must be some little hick-town that will never become famous or recognized....Whoever's heard of "Oxford Street?". Bulldoze it and put up a plaza with massive parking lots!

Here's the poor folks of Dublin forced to walk since cars were banned on Grafton St. The look of disgust on their faces is hard to bear:

https://eu.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitxategi:Dublin_Grafton_street1.jpg

 

[Palma]

It was a good decision. Having the Allen go through Spadina Ave and raze those houses would have been a disaster