Automobile City

[scarberiankhatru]

Milton had the highest growth rate (71.4%), followed by
Brampton (33.3%) and Vaughan (31.2%).

The above came from http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/economy/demographics/census/cenhi06-3.pdf

Look, I'm sure we probably agree more than we realize. But these cited references most certainly refute allegations of growth and population expansion.

Milton lost population between 1996 and 2001! Brampton will begin declining in population once the land runs out (older parts have probably already begun declining). You're not seeing the long-term picture, something that's required when planning transit lines.

The fiefdoms are at odds now. I do believe that the province should take over the TTC and all GTA transit operators.

I am not conveniently missing anything. Building LRT over bus routes does not increase ridership. What I am suggesting is that if you want to service work commuters you have to get them to their work. That increasingly means in the 905. So as long as Toronto continues to stagnate in job creation why expand transit in the 416 only?

Metrolinx and MoveOntario are working to change the current municipal arrangements, which you've also conveniently missed.

Yes, building LRT may increase ridership. Building subways and better GO trains, too, will undoubtedly increase ridership. Heck, adding one more bus per hour increases ridership. Your argument is painfully weak and ignorant of reality.

And no one has said we should only expand transit in the 416. I don't know who you're arguing with here. His first name might be Straw, though.

 

[adma]

Originally Posted by scarberiankhatru
Milton actually lost population between 1996 and 2001 because they weren't subdividing new land at that time.

Milton had the highest growth rate (71.4%), followed by
Brampton (33.3%) and Vaughan (31.2%).

The above came from http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/economy/demographics/census/cenhi06-3.pdf

Look, I'm sure we probably agree more than we realize. But these cited references most certainly refute allegations of growth and population expansion.

Note: scarberiankhatru was referring to Milton's loss between 1996 and 2001. You're referring to Milton's gain between 2001 and 2006, when they started subdividing once again.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Pre-2001 Milton continues to decline in population, by the way.

 

[Panzerfaust]

Since you seem to missing the point let me ask the following. If Toronto was to expand transit service in order to serve commuters where should it go, in circles?

I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. I didn't say service should only be expanded for commuters. Everyone has a right to good transit service. Your exact words were that all transit expansion should be in the 905 with none in Toronto.

 

[Glen]

Metrolinx and MoveOntario are working to change the current municipal arrangements, which you've also conveniently missed.

Wake me up when the TTC relinquishes control.

Yes, building LRT may increase ridership. Building subways and better GO trains, too, will undoubtedly increase ridership. Heck, adding one more bus per hour increases ridership. Your argument is painfully weak and ignorant of reality.

Hmmm works great in San Jose....

Light rail is an obsolete technology that doesn't really work anywhere. But it is especially unsuitable in post-automobile urban areas such as San Jose, whose jobs are spread throughout the area rather than concentrated in a downtown.

San Jose made a major mistake in committing itself to such an inappropriate form of transit. It is compounding that mistake by continuing to build light rail even as congestion increases and funds run short to operate its transit services.

http://www.ti.org/vaupdate32.html

LRT made great financial sense in San Diego, Calgary and Edmonton........

Many medium-size cities are planning or building new light rail transit (LRT) systems, the modern equivalents of streetcars or trolleys. Proponents argue not only that light rail is far less expensive to build than heavy rail, or subway, systems but also that it costs no more to operate than conventional bus transit and offers much improved service. Although it is too early to draw definitive conclusions, the first several years of experience of the new light rail systems in San Diego, Calgary, and Edmonton suggests that proponents have oversold LRT. In all three cities the LRT costs more than the conventional bus service it replaced. Public transit ridership increased modestly in two of the three cities, but the costs per added rider were high

. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a787381559~db=all

And the build it and they will come notion has been debunked here in Toronto with the Spadina LRT and again elsewhere......

It is found that large ridership increases in both areas are caused principally by large service increases and fare reductions, as well as metropolitan employment and population growth

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=71d82a1691629506fe41e77b6e5e4067

And no one has said we should only expand transit in the 416. I don't know who you're arguing with here. His first name might be Straw, though.

I have been arguing that until the demand for increased transit by means of increased employment in the 416 takes place, expansion of the TTC is an unwise investment.

 

[Glen]

I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. I didn't say service should only be expanded for commuters. Everyone has a right to good transit service. Your exact words were that all transit expansion should be in the 905 with none in Toronto.

I stand by that. It is much wiser to increase transit in areas where population and employment is growing than where it is not.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Glen: you seem a tad - scratch that, *extremely* - clueless about transit in Toronto.

The TTC should not see better service because...because some random guy on the internet said the C-train wasn't successful in 1985? The C-train is very successful today, which is why Calgary has long-term plans to double the size of the system and build three more radial lines.

And did you notice that in your clumsy (but amusing) attempt to debunk my theory that service increases cause ridership increases, you quoted something that says "service increases" cause ridership increases?

 

[suv]

If one finds it too difficult to track down the stats, one shouldn't speak of them. Here is the data by Statscan of the GTA on the population growth by Census Tracts between 2001 and 2006:

http://geodepot.statcan.ca/Diss2006/Maps/ThematicMaps/CMA_CT_Maps/English/Toronto_PopDwell_Ec-1.pdf
http://geodepot.statcan.ca/Diss2006/Maps/ThematicMaps/CMA_CT_Maps/English/Toronto_PopDwell_Ec-2.pdf

You'll notice that the population growth in the City of Toronto occurred along the Yonge corridor (particularly downtown and NCC), as well as pockets of Scarborough and Etobicoke. The decline in population happened either in areas experience gentrification (e.g. Parkdale, Riverdale) as well as the inner suburbs. Compare and contrast the pattern in the burbs - growth occurred mainly in greenfield areas.



That's the silliest argument ever - public transportation moves the most people where there are high densities - not necessarily where there is the largest population growth due to some accident in municipal boundaries.

AoD

Hey smart guy. How do you move people from where they live to where they work? As well, most of the population growth in the city works in the 905 employment belt around the city. There has been relatively little job growth in the 416, most of it is ocurring in the 905. Where there is steady jobs in the core, it is well serviced.

 

[Glen]

Glen: you seem a tad - scratch that, *extremely* - clueless about transit in Toronto.

The TTC should not see better service because...because some random guy on the internet said the C-train wasn't successful in 1985? The C-train is very successful today, which is why Calgary has long-term plans to double the size of the system and build three more radial lines.

And did you notice that in your clumsy (but amusing) attempt to debunk my theory that service increases cause ridership increases, you quoted something that says "service increases" cause ridership increases?

You said that "Yes, building LRT may increase ridership". I pointed out that research shows that it is service increases, not type of service, that are the driving force behind increased ridership. If that is to hard to follow I will paraphrase it for you.

I have a suspicion that somewhere in Calgary there is an enlightened individual, such as your self, pointing out that Toronto`s``Transit City` is proof LRT expansion is a good idea. Just because they build them does not mean LRTs were the best option. They may be, especially in lieu of subways. Though, since were are in a forum called "UrbanToronto", and my points have been geared towards, what is the name of that city again...... oh ya, Toronto, lets keep some perspective. Is Toronto's expansion of LRT service an indication of its success in TorontoÉ Your view seems to be that if they are building more LRT service, it must be. I suggest you look at the numbers. Spadina, with a 200 million investment, replaced one of a handful of profitable bus routes with an LRT which looses $40,000 every Mon-Fri. It still has not matched its peak ridership. NB. The TTC likes to use a ridership figure from a period of time when Spadina was under construction, not its all time peak, to lessen the ridership shortfall figures for the Spadina line.

suv, gets it. You repeatedly miss it. The use of public transit is predicated on serving work commuters. Until Toronto starts creating jobs , it should not be expanding transit operations.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I am not conveniently missing anything. Building LRT over bus routes does not increase ridership.

Hmmm works great in San Jose....LRT made great financial sense in San Diego, Calgary and Edmonton........

Just because they build them does not mean LRTs were the best option. They may be, especially in lieu of subways. Though, since were are in a forum called "UrbanToronto", and my points have been geared towards, what is the name of that city again...... oh ya, Toronto, lets keep some perspective.

More people from Toronto are working in the 905 than the opposite. With no viable public transit for them.

Since you seem to missing the point let me ask the following. If Toronto was to expand transit service in order to serve commuters where should it go, in circles?

Going around in circles indeed.

 

[Glen]

Going around in circles indeed.

You obviously missed the sarcastic 'Hmm' in your second quote.


Ar you really buying the notion that what is keeping the poor inner suburbs poor is the lack of higher order transit? I think part of the problem is that the city likes to spend money on unneeded LRTs to take them to their non existent jobs.

They need jobs. Preferably like the ones that used to be in their neighbourhoods. The employment areas close by are changing to places of worship, used car dealerships or more housing developments. Thus the problem facing the inner suburbs is not poor access to transit but poor access to jobs. The only way transit is going to address this is by going to where the jobs are, (hint: not in Toronto).

 

[Hipster Duck]

Glen,

For starters, you don't have to remind either scarberian or I about the fallacies of building LRT in the 'burbs. We've been pretty vocal in criticizing Transit City, if not opposing it and we even gave some clues about our impressions of light rail in this very thread.

Second,

Thus the problem facing the inner suburbs is not poor access to transit but poor access to jobs

In the context of this post, I can't see how "access to jobs" is not synonymous with "access to transit". How are the poor in the 416 suburbs somehow barred from job accessibility compared to their 905 neighbours if it isn't bad transit access? Poor resume building skills?

The only way transit is going to address this is by going to where the jobs are, (hint: not in Toronto).

Okay, you marched into this thread and declared that there should be a moratorium on transit expansion in the city of Toronto until the city got off its ass and dreamed up some jobs.

Now you want to grant the legions of poor inner 416ers access to 905 jobs. Well, sir, how do you expect this to materialize unless we build adequate transit links across the 416/905 boundary which, by definition, involves expanding transit in the city of Toronto?

 

[Glen]

Glen,

For starters, you don't have to remind either scarberian or I about the fallacies of building LRT in the 'burbs. We've been pretty vocal in criticizing Transit City, if not opposing it and we even gave some clues about our impressions of light rail in this very thread.

Second,



In the context of this post, I can't see how "access to jobs" is not synonymous with "access to transit". How are the poor in the 416 suburbs somehow barred from job accessibility compared to their 905 neighbours if it isn't bad transit access? Poor resume building skills?



Okay, you marched into this thread and declared that there should be a moratorium on transit expansion in the city of Toronto until the city got off its ass and dreamed up some jobs.

Now you want to grant the legions of poor inner 416ers access to 905 jobs. Well, sir, how do you expect this to materialize unless we build adequate transit links across the 416/905 boundary which, by definition, involves expanding transit in the city of Toronto?

In this context the relationship is thus;

The TTC does not want to build transit to facilitate outward flows. They would much rather build a Jane St. LRT than extend the subway to Vaughan. My comments have been tempered by the reality of the TTC's M.O.

Of course in light of the current employment geography, the need to leave the city would entail a portion of the journey being in the city itself. That being said, for a large portion of those whom this applies, they do what serves them best. They buy a car. First they find a job in the 905 region, then afterwards they move there. Happens all the time and relates to Toronto's school enrollment declines.

Automobile ownership is a far more effective means to increase wealth than public transit for the poor.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20051128waller.pdf
http://www.cbpp.org/11-8-01wel.htm
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/?page_id=252

If the TTC wants to expand transit to employment areas in the 905, I will retract my remarks.

 

[Panzerfaust]

Glen... I have no words. Seriously, knock yourself out. Go ahead and see how many people on here support your "no 416 transit expansion" plan. Seriously, do it. You make Dentrobate look like an amazing urban planner, and if you ever got into any decision making place, I would weep for the future of the region.

This Hamilton (i.e. 905, the place where you advocate the only transit expansion) resident is laughing.

 

[Glen]

Glen... I have no words. Seriously, knock yourself out. Go ahead and see how many people on here support your "no 416 transit expansion" plan. Seriously, do it. You make Dentrobate look like an amazing urban planner, and if you ever got into any decision making place, I would weep for the future of the region.

This Hamilton (i.e. 905, the place where you advocate the only transit expansion) resident is laughing.

First off when referring to the 905 I am referring to the areas immediately surrounding Toronto proper. Hamilton has a tax climate similar to Toronto and will share the same fate.

If you are a fan of Toronto's planning, I am glad you cannot vote here. Take note that this city is over 1/4 of a million jobs behind its own projections. I take solace in your disapproval.