js97
Senior Member
Then for sure additional taxes on Beef, Imported goods, even more taxes on alchohol, and definitely having kids...
|
|
|
The Housing Market needs to crash.
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
Then for sure additional taxes on Beef, Imported goods, even more taxes on alchohol, and definitely having kids...
neubilder
Banned
Only some people's kids ;-)
js97
Senior Member
Agree whole heartedly... It's mind blowing how all the cycling/transit' advocates alwasy refer to cities a fraction the size of Toronto. Compare us to Madrid, or frankfurt. Don't tell me barcelona does this or minneapolis does that... it's absurd.
neubilder
Banned
Take away the low-density sprawl of the suburbs and DT Toronto has a density that is easily comparable to the Euro cities you list. Moreover, if Toronto is to have any hope of properly directing its future growth, a highly developed transit system is essential.
And to suggest Toronto is too big for a highly developed transit/biking system, well that's just crazy talk.
Last edited:
Jonny5
Senior Member
It's mind blowing to me people shove their head in the sand and play ignorant because they see averaged stats across vast regions aren't identical.
There are solutions to Toronto's problems in every city. Large swaths of Toronto are directly comparable to large swaths of much bigger cities and much smaller cities all over the world.
EDIT: I sometimes wonder if a place like Munich had a line called "Shepard Subway" and was extending it we would be hearing all about how Scarborough Town Centre is really just like a little Munich.
There are solutions to Toronto's problems in every city. Large swaths of Toronto are directly comparable to large swaths of much bigger cities and much smaller cities all over the world.
EDIT: I sometimes wonder if a place like Munich had a line called "Shepard Subway" and was extending it we would be hearing all about how Scarborough Town Centre is really just like a little Munich.
Last edited:
js97
Senior Member
Okay, let's just make over half of Toronto's population and 65% of the landmass disappear... then we can easily make things work. While we are at it, let's take away all the social housing along with their tenants, I'm sure that will easily free up the budget.
How far do you bike to work? I bike twice a week from bloor to Shepperd. I'm lucky enough to sit at a desk job, and have a gym to shower/change, and be physically able to do it (it's a 45 min uphill ride). Not everyone has the luxury of the facilities nor the same physical capabilities.
Are you going to ask construction workers to bike to work after a long day of physical labour? How about all the unionized transit workers, or (some) of the teachers that bring work home?
Living and working within a 5 km buble is an absolute luxury that majority of Torontonians don't have.
It's unrealistic to say we will eliminate the car. Until we have a substantial enough network of RAPID transit (the pipe dream would be Madrid/Paris/NYC), or we start legislating companies to hire their employees that only live within 5 kms of their place of employment, the car will remain a necessity.
Last edited:
RC8
Senior Member
You talk about building rapid transit but it's mind-blowing that you would compare Toronto's suburbs to those of Madrid, Paris, or NYC. The reality is that our suburbs are not dense enough to support rapid transit without permanently destroying our city's budget in a matter of years. In terms of resource and energy efficiency, transit is only an alternative in relatively dense neighbourhoods.
All of Toronto's gridlock doesn't mean that transit (or biking) is a genuine alternative in those places. Downtown should have more biking infrastructure and more transit infrastructure because it will save us time and money as a society while keeping us healthier. The suburbs need not be serviced immediately but rather overhauled before we can 'save them' from bankruptcy (obviously the likes of Oakville will be fine).
Our objective as a city should be to increase density in Toronto's suburbs by building small walkable commercial areas and higher density residential areas. The size of this city's population is increasing rapidly, so it should only take a couple of decades before we can realistically throw some rapid transit lines up there without creating a funding black hole. We can't afford NIMBYs right now when it comes to density.
We do that, increase GO frequency, build bike lanes all over the old city, and throw in an extra subway line or two and car-dependency will be history.
All of Toronto's gridlock doesn't mean that transit (or biking) is a genuine alternative in those places. Downtown should have more biking infrastructure and more transit infrastructure because it will save us time and money as a society while keeping us healthier. The suburbs need not be serviced immediately but rather overhauled before we can 'save them' from bankruptcy (obviously the likes of Oakville will be fine).
Our objective as a city should be to increase density in Toronto's suburbs by building small walkable commercial areas and higher density residential areas. The size of this city's population is increasing rapidly, so it should only take a couple of decades before we can realistically throw some rapid transit lines up there without creating a funding black hole. We can't afford NIMBYs right now when it comes to density.
We do that, increase GO frequency, build bike lanes all over the old city, and throw in an extra subway line or two and car-dependency will be history.
Southoftheborder
New Member
I rode the #12A bus to Scarborough last night. 9:30pm, very packed, and one of the last to get on was a guy with his bike. Has TTC ever considered external bike racks on its buses? That's how bikers in Minneapolis bus with their bikes. You never see a bike ON the bus. And no hangers in the subway cars, either. Minneapolis is a pathetic city for mass transit. But they have retrofitted for bikes in their push to be the top city for bikes in the USA.
js97
Senior Member
So again, back to the reality that our gridlock is created by drivers from the suburbs, (much fewer drivers downtown). So how does building downtown transit first, where individuals that already use alternative transport address our gridlock?
Maybe you should start living in the real world more. You think that is less expensive that extending Rapid transit? Remodeling an entire subdivision/suburb instead of tunneling through it? Who is going to pay for this 'massive remodel?
What happens to private property rights (scrapped in the name of ubranization?)
In an idealistic, downtown centric world, this might apply - but not so much in the real world.
FYI, public transit is supposed to be a cash bleeding enterprise. The social benefit from extending rapid transit to the burbs is reduced congestion for all residents. Just like any other 'social benefit', it generally doesn't make financial sense, but is intended to provide benefits to the entire population. Think of it as another form of social housing benefit. Those that can't afford a home downtown but independent enough to buy one in the burbs can receive the same access as us downtown elites.
It's about time middle class Torontonians receive some government benefits.
Last edited:
RC8
Senior Member
Suburbs will redevelop themselves if zoning is altered. Market forces have a tendency to create density unless you artificially stop them. In your 'real world' we artificially prevent our suburbs from naturally transforming into denser areas.
Adding bike lanes and increasing transit downtown will substantially increase the quality of life of downtowners - and thus make both the area and the high density model more attractive to people who would have otherwise preferred to live in the suburbs (this is already happening to an extent but it can be sped up considerably).
I don't think you've researched the economics of this, but it works like this:
The price of transit can easily be summed up as a function of expense of maintaining the infrastructure per riders per km. Because people living in dense neighbourhoods commute shorter distances and split the price of the service among more people, it is exponentially more affordable on a per capita basis to build transit in dense places. If we build rapid transit in areas that are not dense, then the number of km of subway/whatever that need to be maintained per capita are higher. If the area is so lacking in density that everyone drives anyway, then as a society we are spending a massive amount of money and resources to move people around - to the point where the expenditure becomes terribly inefficient.
The difference is therefore that in a dense place where people have a tendency to not own cars building public transit means that as a society we will be spending less money in transportation - and thus everyone will be richer. By building rapid transit in car-centric sprawl we will be have households who will have to both own a car AND subsidise the transit network, thus making everybody poorer.
When I was younger I was a big advocate for a Mississauga subway, so I know where you are coming from! But while we agree that suburbs should eventually have access to rapid transit, lifting zoning regulations and allowing them to bloom first will lead to less of a financial burden for society.
Adding bike lanes and increasing transit downtown will substantially increase the quality of life of downtowners - and thus make both the area and the high density model more attractive to people who would have otherwise preferred to live in the suburbs (this is already happening to an extent but it can be sped up considerably).
I don't think you've researched the economics of this, but it works like this:
The price of transit can easily be summed up as a function of expense of maintaining the infrastructure per riders per km. Because people living in dense neighbourhoods commute shorter distances and split the price of the service among more people, it is exponentially more affordable on a per capita basis to build transit in dense places. If we build rapid transit in areas that are not dense, then the number of km of subway/whatever that need to be maintained per capita are higher. If the area is so lacking in density that everyone drives anyway, then as a society we are spending a massive amount of money and resources to move people around - to the point where the expenditure becomes terribly inefficient.
The difference is therefore that in a dense place where people have a tendency to not own cars building public transit means that as a society we will be spending less money in transportation - and thus everyone will be richer. By building rapid transit in car-centric sprawl we will be have households who will have to both own a car AND subsidise the transit network, thus making everybody poorer.
When I was younger I was a big advocate for a Mississauga subway, so I know where you are coming from! But while we agree that suburbs should eventually have access to rapid transit, lifting zoning regulations and allowing them to bloom first will lead to less of a financial burden for society.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Doesn't this all trace back to our grand plan of having nodal developments with mini downtowns everywhere? Y/E, NYCC, RHC, VMC, MCC, STC, etc, etc were all planned to be these great mini downtowns that brought urban living to the 'burbs.
The problem with this is two fold. In a nodal model all nodes should be connected by some form of rapid transit, or at minimum all neighbor nodes. This means that someone should be able to get to a terminal in Scarborough Town Centre and take some form of transit out to Mississauga, and do so not in a 2 hr commute but in something competitive with the personal auto. The GTA does not have this.
If we had instead focused on growing the downtown core than all routes could be centred on Toronto.
The problem with this is two fold. In a nodal model all nodes should be connected by some form of rapid transit, or at minimum all neighbor nodes. This means that someone should be able to get to a terminal in Scarborough Town Centre and take some form of transit out to Mississauga, and do so not in a 2 hr commute but in something competitive with the personal auto. The GTA does not have this.
If we had instead focused on growing the downtown core than all routes could be centred on Toronto.
cdr108
Senior Member
there are external bike racks on buses but i don't think they are all equiped with them.
in my university days, i used to bike from scarborough to UofT st. george campus daily (~25km each way) with my books, etc after getting really frustrated with the service (it took almost the same time to bike vs. ttc) and BO/bodily fluid habits of fellow passengers.
i was fortunate to be able to use the gym to shower before classes though.
if i had to return home really late, i would take the ttc with my bike on it.
neubilder
Banned
This is an inflexible and dualistic view of the situation: We either accept that we can't function without cars thus rendering transit pointless, or we create a perfect transit system and eliminate cars.
I don't think anyone is talking about eliminating cars, just that we tax driving and use revenues to support alternatives to driving.
Southoftheborder
New Member
Tonight I took the right bus up Kingston, and it had the same bike racks with which I'm familiar. So I guess its random. By the way, walking up Yonge Street tonight, I stumbled across a Telus bike location. $5 for a whole day! Wow, that sounds like a great deal. I might do that before this is over. I think you actually have to buy a membership in Minneapolis. It did seem odd that an energetic city like Toronto wouldn't have such a thing. Honestly, I see so many people here is ideal physical shape. Maybe its just the youth of the population. Last I heard the student population was above a half million.
RC8
Senior Member
Wait! Don't!
You can have ACCESS to the bikes for the whole day and as many times as you want, but each trip needs to be shorter than 30min or it costs extra. You can dock it at any station in the city, and you can take it back out 2 minutes later if you want to continue biking.
It's a wonderful asset and I use it all the time, but you have to be careful not to literally take the bike with you for the whole day (that'll cost you a lot of money).