|
St. Clair ruling derails city plans (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
so we're catering to cars instead of improving transit in an area where there is no room to build new roads...brilliant.
|
It's the exact opposite.
Most transportation money in the City of Toronto is earmarked for mass transit, and very little for roads.
In fact, had the Crosstown Expressway been built, the traffic problem on St. Clair would have been solved.
Not building the expressway system hasn't reduced the number of cars on the road. Instead, cars clog up city streets - streets that were never designed to be major arteries. |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
this isnt a nimby issue. Its common sense. You dont block parking in front of businesses. Its an instant business killer. Everybody knows this. If they want to clear up congestion there are 2 options.
A) get rid of the streetcars and use busses.
B) get rid of the streetcars and build a subway. St CLair is a perfect candidate for a subway line
|
Agreed...First of all St Clair isn't WIDE enough like Spadina...Streetcars are WAY more expensive per unit then a wheelchair accessible bus...The TTC is also getting 200 hybrid buses soon so they are cheaper to run since streetcars use HUGE amounts of electricity (power generation is a problem for Ontario anyway)...Streetcars should go the way of the dinosaur and cause WAY more traffic on King & Queen streets |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Not building the expressway system hasn't reduced the number of cars on the road. Instead, cars clog up city streets - streets that were never designed to be major arteries. |
That may be intentional tho, you don't want to many cars downtown, hence you shouldnt make it *too* attractive to drive there. More expressways would lead to more ppl taking the car, which would lead to a more clogged downtown. I mean if ppl wanted to drive by downtown they could take some other highway anyway. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
That may be intentional tho, you don't want to many cars downtown, hence you shouldnt make it *too* attractive to drive there. More expressways would lead to more ppl taking the car, which would lead to a more clogged downtown. I mean if ppl wanted to drive by downtown they could take some other highway anyway. |
Sorry but that's specious reasoning.
First of all, why wouldn't we want too many cars downtown? The only logical reason is that we can't support that many cars downtown. Build some expressways and that problem is taken care of.
Secondly, people will drive there anyway, no matter how difficult you make it. People need to get where they need to get. Not everybody has an extra half hour to waste on public transportation. The ONLY true incentive for people to drive or not drive is ECONOMICS. If it is vastly more economical to take public transit and it doesn't involve making too many other sacrifices, people will do it. Making the roads better or worse will *never* make any significant impact on the number of drivers.
Finally, there ARE no other highways to take! So what do you mean by that comment? |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
More expressways would lead to more ppl taking the car, which would lead to a more clogged downtown. |
That was the assumption of the Jane Jacobs crowd that successfully lobbied to kill the expressway system.
It was a flawed assumption. The same proportion of people drive today as in the 60's - people will drive regardless of the inconvenience. The difference is that now there's gridlock and INCREASED pollution.
We need a balanced transportation plan that includes rapid transit AND expressways.
The problem is that the province doesn't spend enough money on transportation infrastructure, mostly because of the fiscal imbalance.
Also, the money that is spent is not spent well. The billion-dollar Sheppard subway line the a great example of that.
Actually, the city of Toronto itself has a half-decent mass transit system. The bigger problem is there's almost no connection to the suburbs other than GO Trains, which run very infrequently (they should run more often to be a credible alternative for suburbanites). |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
we need more subways and trains and better hubs.
Buses will follow where needed. But busses alone cant do it. We need to have hubs and train stations as well as subway stations should be those hubs.
Increase frequency of go service. Get cheaper trains to run on go service. Expand go service.
And most importantly, start rethinking our planning or lack of it. A large concentration of people should be living around train and subway stations and/or working near them. Right now we build a subdivision whereever we feel like it and our train stations are out in the middle of nowhere with a 5 acre parking lot between it and the nearest road.
Why should i spend $8 on the train each way when i have to spend the money on a car and insurance just to get me to the train station? By that point i might as well just drive the whole way. Which is precisely why we have problems here. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Sorry but that's specious reasoning.
First of all, why wouldn't we want too many cars downtown? The only logical reason is that we can't support that many cars downtown. Build some expressways and that problem is taken care of. |
Well there are a lote more reasons. First of all, the more cars the more polution. Second of all, if you get more cars downtown, downtown won't be as attractive for pedestrians and people living there. I know that might sound weird to a north american, but really, a downtown is sooooo much nicer if you have fewer cars.
The expressways would make it easier for people to get downtown, not to get around downtown, we would still have the same problems on the none expressways downtown.
| quote: | | Secondly, people will drive there anyway, no matter how difficult you make it. People need to get where they need to get. Not everybody has an extra half hour to waste on public transportation. The ONLY true incentive for people to drive or not drive is ECONOMICS. If it is vastly more economical to take public transit and it doesn't involve making too many other sacrifices, people will do it. Making the roads better or worse will *never* make any significant impact on the number of drivers. |
Economics is not the only incentive for people to drive or not. Time is a huge factor too. In most cities with a working mass transit system it is a lot faster to go to work if you take the public transport (assuming you work downtown).
So instead of putting lots of money on new expressways, you should put those money on making a subway system!
| quote: | | Finally, there ARE no other highways to take! So what do you mean by that comment? |
I mean that now, unless you want to go downtown, you will avoid going (through) downtown now, right? That's what I mean by that comment.
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
That was the assumption of the Jane Jacobs crowd that successfully lobbied to kill the expressway system.
It was a flawed assumption. The same proportion of people drive today as in the 60's - people will drive regardless of the inconvenience. The difference is that now there's gridlock and INCREASED pollution.
We need a balanced transportation plan that includes rapid transit AND expressways. |
Well yes, expressways are needed too, especially around cities (you have a a fair share of them tho). But given your low spending on both, I would say that the transit system needs a lot more funding. Comparing with other cities, your expressway system is good, but your mass transit (or at least yor subway system) is ing terrible.
| quote: | | The problem is that the province doesn't spend enough money on transportation infrastructure, mostly because of the fiscal imbalance. |
Yeah I see the problem, insane imo.
| quote: | | Actually, the city of Toronto itself has a half-decent mass transit system. The bigger problem is there's almost no connection to the suburbs other than GO Trains, which run very infrequently (they should run more often to be a credible alternative for suburbanites). |
Compare the following city's public transport systems:
Toronto (5.5 million ppl)
Madrid (3 millions)
Stockholm (1.5 million ppl)
Paris (10.5 million)
Hamburg (1.8 million)
Ehm no, Toronto doesnt have a decent subway system. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
i think it was already said in a previous thread that North America is a car culture .. but at the same time i've noticed a lot of North American cities (trying to) make great strides in the way of improving public transit.
i believe part of the problem lies in lack of funding from higher levels of government ie. Provincial and Federal which has also been mentioned already. Aside from the fact that Toronto itself lacks a lot of power and self-autonomy when it comes to making such decisions on large civil projects.
now aside from all this is anyone here taking any active role in lobbying for these said changes or do we all just like to complain here? I doubt you'll find a lotta politicians scouring the boards of Tranceaddict looking for process improvements on public transit .. :wtf:
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
i think it was already said in a previous thread that North America is a car culture .. but at the same time i've noticed a lot of North American cities (trying to) make great strides in the way of improving public transit. |
Yeah, true. But even compared to American cities:
New York City (8 million, this one is obviously not really fair though since the New York metropolitan area has something like 20 million ppl)
Boston (5.7 million)
Washington DC (4.7 million)
| quote: | | i believe part of the problem lies in lack of funding from higher levels of government ie. Provincial and Federal which has also been mentioned already. Aside from the fact that Toronto itself lacks a lot of power and self-autonomy when it comes to making such decisions on large civil projects. |
True. We have the same problem in Sweden, the big cities (stockholm), rarely get any federal funding (even tho 25% of the population lives there). Instead they plunge billions into totally useless highways/rails and other useless projects up north that no one is going to use anyway. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
well to compare TO with New York is a bit unfair considering that it (along with Boston) has an extremely old system which was (if i'm not mistaken) put in place far earlier than the TTC. Not to mention that New York should be compared to cities like London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. As for Boston, I've been there and it's not much .. their subways are pretty much streetcars and simply run underground, which some of ours do along the LRT route.
Washington D.C. on the other hand has a very nice system the last time i rode on it. Many of their stations in the downtown area are also built in a such a way that they could be used to evacuate a large number of people underground if necessary. Tho it having an extensive subway system may have a lot to do with the fact that it is its respective nation's capital, and if u saw how many government officials ride that thing on a daily basis, u wouldn't be surprised if u found out that a lot of its funding came directly from the federal government.
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
well to compare TO with New York is a bit unfair considering that it (along with Boston) has an extremely old system which was (if i'm not mistaken) put in place far earlier than the TTC. Not to mention that New York should be compared to cities like London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. As for Boston, I've been there and it's not much .. their subways are pretty much streetcars and simply run underground, which some of ours do along the LRT route. |
If they are old or not is really beside the point, the different maps was just to prove that ShadoWolf's statement that Toronto has a half decent public transport system is not really true.
And as for advanced the system is, it doesnt really matter imo, I mean it's better to have a big system with crappy cars than a small one with cool cars.
I'm not saying that Toronto has an aweful public transport system, but compared to most cities on the US east coast you have one of the worst I think (at least the ones I checked). And even Montreal have a larger subway system. But compared to for example Detroit or Houston which doesn't seem to even have a subway, it's good.
But really, comparing is stupid, what is a fact is that the Public transport system in Toronto is not good enough, it (apperntly) takes a lot longer to go somewhere with it than it does taking the car, even in rush hours. And it just covers a few parts of the city. Too bad for such an awesome city imo, a working mass transit system is important for everyday life.
| quote: | | Washington D.C. on the other hand has a very nice system the last time i rode on it. Many of their stations in the downtown area are also built in a such a way that they could be used to evacuate a large number of people underground if necessary. Tho it having an extensive subway system may have a lot to do with the fact that it is its respective nation's capital, and if u saw how many government officials ride that thing on a daily basis, u wouldn't be surprised if u found out that a lot of its funding came directly from the federal government. |
Toronto is almost like the nation's capital ;)
Really, 20% or so of Canada's population lives in the GTA, you should be able to get plenty of federal money imo. |
|
|
| MarkT |
rejecting the proposal in favour of another one (like buses, as RobbyG suggested) is one thing...but to hear some people saying it screws up parking is just stupid.
we need to get off of the "cars first" mentality in dense areas and the DT core and focus on making affordable and efficient transit as the #1 option. |
|
|
|
|
