Automobile City

[TKTKTK]

Again, if you don't want to shop there, don't. Your money will probably not be missed. It is entirely possible you don't see the difference between that and, say, health care, but I suspect you probably do.

Sooooo cranky.

I brought up healthcare as an extreme example of something that can work in a free market system (even if it shouldn't). I didn't suggest it was equal to the need for parking.

 

[EnviroTO]

Healthcare works in a free market system? Since when? How is a transplant ever going to be equally affordable to people of two completely different income levels? What is the proper price for a life saving operation?

 

[suv]

Come on. Comparing health care to transportation?

I bumped into this site, looking for info on something else....so first let me apologize for not being uber sophisticated like most here.

But just like my comments on another thread, there is a tendency demonstrated by others to hijack and coerce the arguement to their side by tossing in irrelvance.

I believe the original poster wanted to know how do we take existing infrastructure and build (density, transit, institutions) areound that. Maybe I'm not left, or right...but regardless, you can take a horse to transit, but you can't make him pay to get on however cheap it might be.

Maybe it's time we brought transit to people where they currently are and build the density that would surelly follow. Instead of hawking vitrol on the public because they chose to live in cu de sacs, if instead there was real leadership in utilizing resources to build transit along Sheppard (the entire length); Steeles, etc. IN TIME these areas will densify with all amenities...the horse would be so convenienced, transit would be a hay ride....imho.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Come on. Comparing health care to transportation?

I bumped into this site, looking for info on something else....so first let me apologize for not being uber sophisticated like most here.

But just like my comments on another thread, there is a tendency demonstrated by others to hijack and coerce the arguement to their side by tossing in irrelvance.

Thank you. You are certainly right about holding posts for ransom.

I believe the original poster wanted to know how do we take existing infrastructure and build (density, transit, institutions) areound that. Maybe I'm not left, or right...but regardless, you can take a horse to transit, but you can't make him pay to get on however cheap it might be.

Maybe it's time we brought transit to people where they currently are and build the density that would surelly follow. Instead of hawking vitrol on the public because they chose to live in cu de sacs, if instead there was real leadership in utilizing resources to build transit along Sheppard (the entire length); Steeles, etc. IN TIME these areas will densify with all amenities...the horse would be so convenienced, transit would be a hay ride....imho.

As scarberian said, Toronto already is one of the most transit-friendly cities in North America with relatively dense suburbs and reliable bus service on pretty much every large arterial. The usual gripes about making transit competitive with the car, or luring suburbanites out of their cars and onto buses is much less of an issue here than in, say, Atlanta or Phoenix, because many suburbanites already do this.

What the TTC lacks is a) speed, and, b) an ability to serve the thousands of people that reside in the cul de sac sprawl that lies inside the arterial grid. Therefore, the challenge that Toronto faces over the next fifty years is to a) speed up existing corridors, and, b) introduce some sort of lower-order transit to service low density neighbourhoods.

a) to speed up travel time on the arterials, we have to put more emphasis on express bus service and, in some cases where demand warrants it, we will have to build subways or regional rail. LRTs lack the speed and capacity of subways and the cheapness and flexibility of express buses. They are a middle of the road solution. Just like buying a combination printer/scanner, you end up getting burned twice, rather than the best of both worlds. It's better to just ante up.

b) This could be a vanpool system that uses Wheel Trans buses to travel around the side streets and cul de sacs, taking passengers to the nearest express bus stop on the closest arterial. We should also not underestimate the importance that bikes would play. Constructing proper bike lanes and proper bike storage facilities at key intersections would lure a lot of cul de sac dwellers to make the 2km trek to the nearest express bus stop. Painting a line down the side of a wide suburban road and building ring and post locks also costs peanuts.

In terms of development-planning, I think the city should concentrate, rather than disperse where new condos and office projects go. The avenues looks fine in presentations but it cannot be sustained over the dozens of kilometers of suburban arterials that planners anticipate.

The lion's share of development in this city should not be spread over the 600 square kilometers of Metro, but rather concentrated in several nodes, downtown being the principal one. I am confident that the area bounded by the Don Valley, Dupont/Bloor and Bathurst can probably gain up to 500,000 more people fairly comfortably over fifty years. There is still a plethora of parking lots and marginal use land such as back alleys that we can capitalize on. North York Centre could accommodate another 100k, and the same goes for the Islington/Bloor area. There is some merit in having avenues-style development but only along existing avenues: Mount Pleasant, Eglinton between Keele and Bayview, etc. If Toronto gradually shifted from a two-storey city to a five-storey city along its urban drags, you would be surprised at how many people and businesses we could house.

 

[TKTKTK]

Come on. Comparing health care to transportation?

There was no comparison, are you reading a different thread?

Healthcare works in a free market system? Since when? How is a transplant ever going to be equally affordable to people of two completely different income levels? What is the proper price for a life saving operation?

That depends on what you think the goal of the healthcare industry should be; to keep the public healthy, or to be profitable. Healthcare can be REALLY profitable, but not particularly beneficial for anyone who can't afford it.

 

[TKTKTK]

The lion's share of development in this city should not be spread over the 600 square kilometers of Metro, but rather concentrated in several nodes, downtown being the principal one. I am confident that the area bounded by the Don Valley, Dupont/Bloor and Bathurst can probably gain up to 500,000 more people fairly comfortably over fifty years. There is still a plethora of parking lots and marginal use land such as back alleys that we can capitalize on. North York Centre could accommodate another 100k, and the same goes for the Islington/Bloor area. There is some merit in having avenues-style development but only along existing avenues: Mount Pleasant, Eglinton between Keele and Bayview, etc. If Toronto gradually shifted from a two-storey city to a five-storey city along its urban drags, you would be surprised at how many people and businesses we could house.

It's definitely something we should be working towards! I just disagree with the belief that we should treat drivers as if that were already the reality

 

[suv]

In terms of development-planning, I think the city should concentrate, rather than disperse where new condos and office projects go. The avenues looks fine in presentations but it cannot be sustained over the dozens of kilometers of suburban arterials that planners anticipate.

The lion's share of development in this city should not be spread over the 600 square kilometers of Metro, but rather concentrated in several nodes, downtown being the principal one. I am confident that the area bounded by the Don Valley, Dupont/Bloor and Bathurst can probably gain up to 500,000 more people fairly comfortably over fifty years. There is still a plethora of parking lots and marginal use land such as back alleys that we can capitalize on. North York Centre could accommodate another 100k, and the same goes for the Islington/Bloor area. There is some merit in having avenues-style development but only along existing avenues: Mount Pleasant, Eglinton between Keele and Bayview, etc. If Toronto gradually shifted from a two-storey city to a five-storey city along its urban drags, you would be surprised at how many people and businesses we could house.[/QUOTE]


Tokyo has a density far beyond what you propose. While Toronto is already a transit oriented city compared to many other cities, the solutions would seem to be to increase the transportation infrastructure to accomodate the region, and not just pander to the geographical block identified above.

The reality is much of the car commuter traffic is not originated in the 416, but the 905/705 coming into the region. To limit development and the accruing transportation infrastructure to "the area bounded by the Don Valley, Dupont/Bloor and Bathurst" reeks of the same Toronto naval gazing much of the country, province and gta has come to despise Toronto with. The East Beaver Creek area is probably the second most important economic area in the GTA. More and more of these economic foot prints are developing away from Toronto.

If the health of the rest of the city and region is not considered (by providing a larger transportaion role and solution) then this block will either be where the poor will live and travel en masse, and the rich move to land where they commute by car, or conversely this block could be the island of utopia, and the surrounding areas large neglected patches of the poor. In either scenario, not desireable for the poor, not the rich and definitely not the city most would want to live.

 

[Lone Primate]

Except that the free parking is provided at the shopping centres, big box stores, or big stores that have parking lots (ie. Square One, Shoppers, Loblaws, Canadian Tire, etc.), but the stores that line the main streets have parking on the street with meters provided by the city. To even it out, those big store parking lots should have the same parking meters, or get rid of the parking meters on the streets.

No, to even it out, the guys in the street-level storefronts ought to pay for the land which we, the people of the city, make available to them for free for the convenience of their patrons and to the benefit of their businesses — otherwise known as "the streets". And don't try telling me they pay for it in their property taxes -- if that were the case, Yorkdale would be paying the freight for all of us to park right on the 401. The shopping centres pay through the nose for the land we park on, and make it accessible to us so we have an incentive to come, blow our money, and thus pay the wages and huge taxes that keep this city, this province, and this country running.

When you've got a choice between a carrot-and-the-stick incentive vs punitive model, find a way to offer people incentives. They feel good about themselves when they opt for them, serving both their own interests and those of the community. Punitive models, on the other hand, are almost always viewed with resentment as heavy-handed, patronizing measures to be skirted and flouted, and that mindset does not serve the civic interest.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Tokyo has a density far beyond what you propose. While Toronto is already a transit oriented city compared to many other cities, the solutions would seem to be to increase the transportation infrastructure to accomodate the region, and not just pander to the geographical block identified above.

The reality is much of the car commuter traffic is not originated in the 416, but the 905/705 coming into the region. To limit development and the accruing transportation infrastructure to "the area bounded by the Don Valley, Dupont/Bloor and Bathurst" reeks of the same Toronto naval gazing much of the country, province and gta has come to despise Toronto with.

I don't think this is navel gazing. I think that we should support sustainable development with the resources we have. Downtown has swallowed a large
amount of population and employment growth in the last ten years and they haven't had to expand the road infrastructure to accommodate it. I don't think they ever will. If memory serves, downtown Toronto has the same number of cars coming in today as it did in 1960. If just one rapid transit line - the Downtown Relief Line - were built, it could probably cater to a million people. In terms of infrastructure investments, you certainly get more bang for your buck downtown than anywhere else in the region.

I also don't think that I'm pandering to anything except for prevailing trends. A good chunk of the residential development in the GTA has taken place in downtown Toronto - probably a higher proportion than in any other city in NA except Vancouver. Despite overloaded transit lines and high prices, people continue to move downtown in droves. By concentrating development downtown we're essentially giving people what they want.

 

[suv]

No, to even it out, the guys in the street-level storefronts ought to pay for the land which we, the people of the city, make available to them for free for the convenience of their patrons and to the benefit of their businesses — otherwise known as "the streets". And don't try telling me they pay for it in their property taxes -- if that were the case, Yorkdale would be paying the freight for all of us to park right on the 401. The shopping centres pay through the nose for the land we park on, and make it accessible to us so we have an incentive to come, blow our money, and thus pay the wages and huge taxes that keep this city, this province, and this country running.

When you've got a choice between a carrot-and-the-stick incentive vs punitive model, find a way to offer people incentives. They feel good about themselves when they opt for them, serving both their own interests and those of the community. Punitive models, on the other hand, are almost always viewed with resentment as heavy-handed, patronizing measures to be skirted and flouted, and that mindset does not serve the civic interest.

Well said. It is the heavy handed approach that people find disdainful.

 

[suv]

I don't think this is navel gazing. I also don't think that I'm pandering to anything except for prevailing trends. A good chunk of the residential development in the GTA has taken place in downtown Toronto - probably a higher proportion than in any other city in NA except Vancouver. Despite overloaded transit lines and high prices, people continue to move downtown in droves. By concentrating development downtown we're essentially giving people what they want.

Um, Scarborough has added more to it's population base in the last ten years than downtown. But I'm probably wrong on that, so excuse me. However, as I travel thru Milton, Oakville, Woodbridge, Brampton, Markham, Ajax, Brooklin...I'm sure some of these beat Scarborough by a country mile in population growth....so that would just crush downtown.

If the same number of cars are coming into downtown and we have insane gridlock, I guess it is because people are travelling to their jobs in Mississauga, Vaughn, Richmond Hill and bypassing Downtown Toronto, where there has been negligible job growth in the last ten years...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Tokyo has a density far beyond what you propose. While Toronto is already a transit oriented city compared to many other cities, the solutions would seem to be to increase the transportation infrastructure to accomodate the region, and not just pander to the geographical block identified above.

The reality is much of the car commuter traffic is not originated in the 416, but the 905/705 coming into the region. To limit development and the accruing transportation infrastructure to "the area bounded by the Don Valley, Dupont/Bloor and Bathurst" reeks of the same Toronto naval gazing much of the country, province and gta has come to despise Toronto with. The East Beaver Creek area is probably the second most important economic area in the GTA. More and more of these economic foot prints are developing away from Toronto.

If the health of the rest of the city and region is not considered (by providing a larger transportaion role and solution) then this block will either be where the poor will live and travel en masse, and the rich move to land where they commute by car, or conversely this block could be the island of utopia, and the surrounding areas large neglected patches of the poor. In either scenario, not desireable for the poor, not the rich and definitely not the city most would want to live.

Decent bus service already exists all over the city...running higher order transit lines out to random culs-de-sac in the hopes that residents will be tempted to take transit is not a viable option unless the houses on the culs-de-sac are, literally, razed and rebuilt with something denser. That, as we all know, is simply not going to happen.

Hipster Duck isn't suggesting we only permit development in that downtown block, just that we should funnel as much as possible to such a block, or to other nodes. You can claim that's not what people want, but, over the years, the wants of the home buying public have shown to be very malleable and highly susceptible to trends, advertising, propaganda, etc. It would be very difficult or outright impossible to suddenly cancel all new houses and only build apartment towers, but pretty much everything that you like about your house overlooking the Rouge Park can be had in a townhouse, or a stacked townhouse, or a condo with a large terrace.

 

[Glen]

When Toronto starts creating jobs, that is when it should start expanding transit. Until then there should be a moratorium on TTC expansion.

I mean for F's sake, Toronto has less jobs than a generation ago. More people from Toronto are working in the 905 than the opposite. With no viable public transit for them.

 

[RedRocket191]

So do you propose we concentrate transit expansion in the 905?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

When Toronto starts creating jobs, that is when it should start expanding transit. Until then there should be a moratorium on TTC expansion.

I mean for F's sake, Toronto has less jobs than a generation ago. More people from Toronto are working in the 905 than the opposite. With no viable public transit for them.

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. How can 416ers get to these jobs in the 905 without expanding transit?