News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.9K     0 


I actually don't support this. (income specific concession fares); aside from needless bureaucracy (I oppose all concession fares); it also makes transit appear as if its a service for the poor; and also negates the idea of treating low income people as adults who can determine their own priorities. (what people with low income need, is money).

By all means, I support more resources for transit, and take no issue with lowering fares overall (particularly via daily and monthly caps, ie can't be charged for more than 3 fares in one day, can't be charged for more than 36-40 fares per month) .

I also support raising the cost of parking on-street, of course, and have championed as much regularly.

But lets not do siloed, ghettoized handouts that condescend to the poor (if we give them cash, they might mis-spend it!) and instead focus on quality public services, be they free (from a public-facing point of view) or highly affordable.
 
The Toronto Parking Authority (Green P) was first set up in 1952 by the old City of Toronto, taking over management of parking from the police. It grew to cover the amalgamated city in 1998. Being a "product" of the 1950's, it was created to serve the automobile, with the creation of parking lots and garages (and later on-street parking) with rates CHEAPER than the commercial lots and garages.

It should be changed to provide long-term alternate parking other than on-street for residents of the city, and short-term parking for visitors (such as tourists). This would allow the removal of on-street parking to create better public transit flow on the city streets. It also means the creation of delivery zones adjacent to buildings that do not have delivery spaces inside them, preferably in Green P lots or garages with spaces allocated for deliveries or maintenance contractors.
 
How exactly would that work??? Do you foresee a row of condo buildings all with mass transit stations in their basements then asking 'the government' to build a subway or LRT line to actually serve them? Of course, developers should provide $$ to help building transit (and other things) to serve their new residents and that's what "Development Charges" are supposed to do. Of course, The Thug is abolishing/reducing these charges so there will soon be LESS money available.
Good planning for a start. Developers want to build a new condo tower grouping, like Liberty Village for example. The existing low density area is served by a single in-traffic streetcar line, the 504. No LRT, dedicated transit way or subway is nearby. Now developers want to build a condo grouping to house 8,000 people. They go ahead, but invest nothing in addressing transit, leaving it the city to as cheaply as possible add a partial ROW on King St. for the 504. Instead, the developers should have been obliged to build a transit hub right in the centre of the development (without losing green space) with a ROW streetcar line linking to the subway. It can't be done on single standalone condo projects, but when creating entire new density from brownfield land there should be a transit plan.
 
I'm always surprised to see how cheap parking is in Toronto when compared to other North American cities that have much worse transit. I wonder if it is because of the green P option.
Cheap parking does entice me to take the car. I shop at St. Lawrence Market on Saturday mornings. If my wife and I took TTC and stayed less than two hours it would cost $6.40 ($3.20 on Presto x 2). Parking in the Green P next door costs $2. Why would anyone take the TTC.
 
Good planning for a start. Developers want to build a new condo tower grouping, like Liberty Village for example. The existing low density area is served by a single in-traffic streetcar line, the 504. No LRT, dedicated transit way or subway is nearby. Now developers want to build a condo grouping to house 8,000 people. They go ahead, but invest nothing in addressing transit, leaving it the city to as cheaply as possible add a partial ROW on King St. for the 504. Instead, the developers should have been obliged to build a transit hub right in the centre of the development (without losing green space) with a ROW streetcar line linking to the subway. It can't be done on single standalone condo projects, but when creating entire new density from brownfield land there should be a transit plan.
"Single in-traffic streetcar line"?
1671218906882.png
From link.
You forgot the 63 OSSINGTON bus. Wasn't the bus to be the transit future for cities (not)?

As well as the 509 HARBOURFRONT an 511 BATHURST streetcars coming into the Exhibition Loop.

Accessible via an underpass under the railway from Liberty Village. Not pretty, at the moment, but to be improved (allegedly) with the Ontario Line's Exhibition Station.

Possible FUTURE transit...
1645115055428-png.380693
 
Last edited:
How is the 63 relevant? It doesn't even go downtown!
The 63 OSSINGTON bus replaced the old DOVERCOURT streetcar in 1947. Before 1947, there were DAVENPORT TRIPPER cars that did. They could create a 63 Tripper bus to go downtown, unlikely because of the anti-transit decision-makers.

dovercourt-stop-map-courtesy-ucrs.jpg
 
Yet another random attack on the TTC! The TTC's security needs to be massively overhauled. Transit Police with powers patrolling all subways and stations would be a good start.

Please be vigilant everyone. I no longer stick my nose in my phone when I'm in a station or subway. I'm always looking around.

Man attacks two people after boarding subway at Kennedy station: police​


 
Last edited:
They could create a 63 Tripper bus to go downtown, unlikely because of the anti-transit decision-makers.
Is it? Do you know that there is a demand for such a service, or are you automatically writing it off as anti-transit without having any facts to hand?
 
Is it? Do you know that there is a demand for such a service, or are you automatically writing it off as anti-transit without having any facts to hand?

The TTC should create tripper buses. A tripper is a continuation of a route into another route without a transfer involved, usually during the rush hours. The "tripper" term dates back from before the 1940s when several streetcar routes in Toronto had alternate "tripper" services supplementing the base route.
 
The TTC should create tripper buses. A tripper is a continuation of a route into another route without a transfer involved, usually during the rush hours. The "tripper" term dates back from before the 1940s when several streetcar routes in Toronto had alternate "tripper" services supplementing the base route.
Surely replaced by 2-hour free transfers for everyone who uses Presto.
 
I know what a tripper is, I am well versed in my Toronto transit history.

That doesn't answer my question. Is there a demand for a branch of the 63 that goes into downtown? It's not enough to look at a map from 80 years ago, we must ask ourselves where people are going and how those needs can best be met.

FWIW, I don't know, it's entirely possible a through Ossington - King service could be necessary. I don't know. But that's why you don't see me here making route suggestions based on World War II-era service patterns.
 
Yet another random attack on the TTC!
Arrested! Another f#xking nutbar attacking passengers on the TTC!


Paywall free:
It’s only a matter of time before the violently deranged among us attack the wrong person.

 
Last edited:

Back
Top