Cooool
Active Member
don't worry folks because according to Miller, Giambrone, and others, Transit City will save the day!![]()
The plan would be beautiful if it were a subway. But to me, I can't help but think they're glorified streetcars.
don't worry folks because according to Miller, Giambrone, and others, Transit City will save the day!![]()
Compared to most similar-sized American cities (and even some smaller ones), I would guess that Toronto actually has a lower density of freeways (but better transit). E.g., see a road map of metropolitan Dallas, San Diego, Minneapolis or St. Louis. Whereas most American cities have lots of freeways and poor transit, and European cities have few freeways and lots of transit, we seem to have taken a middling approach.
It's true, and it's really killing the region. I think I've said it before, if I had to chose between what we have now and the freeway plan in the 60s, I'd choose the freeways cause people would be able to go around. Of course, if there was an option for good transit expansion vs. highways, I'd obviously choose transit. But for the past about 30-40 years, we've been in the middle ground and have gotten totally nowhere.As I said, we have attempted a "middle ground" approach, which has allowed highways to proliferate. Look at the 401, for instance, which is 18 lanes wide at one point, and the 427 is also quite wide, to the point that the 401 and 427 might as well count for more than one highway. There's the QEW/Gardiner, DVP/404, 403/410, and 407.
It's true. I see two things; Canada's "Metro Areas" are tiny compared to US cities, and it seems like the US has to stretch the Metro area of every single one of their cities so every single "amalgamation" has a population of over 5 million. If you took the Metro Area of say, Chicago, it'd cover all the populated parts of the GGH, which means we're only 2 million shy of Metro Chicago.Comparing Toronto to Dallas, San Diego, Minneapolis or St. Louis is a bad comparison because the region is simply more significant than any of those places and population grow has been and will continue to be high; one's expectation for leadership in transit expansion is higher, because the alternative is a large amount of sprawl.
Yeah, I'm disappointed too. But I think that this is where Metrolinx should really be coming in and well... managing transit. When they created the RTP, they took all the projects that the cities grabbed from MO2020, and put them together into this huge frankenstein-like "network" with very little coherency and that makes no sense at all. When will we get people who actually know about transit into Metrolinx?! People should really be realizing that we are in no way a poor city, province or country. I think this is being realized in other places in the country, but it's hit Toronto quite late, if at all.MoveOntario 2020 is significant in theory with its stronger focus on transit expansion, but the attitude now of maximizing expansion with inferior infrastructure (diesel trains or on-street LRT) is also concerning.
It's true, and it's really killing the region. I think I've said it before, if I had to chose between what we have now and the freeway plan in the 60s, I'd choose the freeways cause people would be able to go around. Of course, if there was an option for good transit expansion vs. highways, I'd obviously choose transit. But for the past about 30-40 years, we've been in the middle ground and have gotten totally nowhere.
Much of the needed rail infrastructure already exists to get many drivers off the road, like me. If GO Transit would actually run trains outbound in the morning and into Union in the evening I could go from Union to Markham station every day instead of driving. The Markham GO Station is only 4.1 km from my office. If they allowed bicycles on the train, I could ride to work in no time.I agree with Cooool and Hipster, we need better transit service.
Much of the needed rail infrastructure already exists to get many drivers off the road, like me. If GO Transit would actually run trains outbound in the morning and into Union in the evening I could go from Union to Markham station every day instead of driving. The Markham GO Station is only 4.1 km from my office. If they allowed bicycles on the train, I could ride to work in no time.
First, Go's working on the all day service thing. For the Stouffville line, hourly service should be coming in this winter (if it's still on schedule.) Not sure how that'll work with rush hour, but after all day service is introduced, they'll continue expanding the double track until it's double tracked for a majority of the trip.Much of the needed rail infrastructure already exists to get many drivers off the road, like me. If GO Transit would actually run trains outbound in the morning and into Union in the evening I could go from Union to Markham station every day instead of driving. The Markham GO Station is only 4.1 km from my office. If they allowed bicycles on the train, I could ride to work in no time.
Blame the decentralization of employment to office parks and far flung industrial areas which requires you to have a car to get around. Most of the commutes, and most of the traffic, results from suburb-to-suburb commuting rather than commuting to the central city, anyway. The worst bottlenecks are, of course, where suburban highways narrow from 6 lanes to 3 in each direction, such as the 401 through Mississauga, the 401 east of Salem and the dreaded QEW at the Ford Plant.
The answer isn't to build transit following development, but to build transit prior to development and confining growth to those corridors only. In fact, we already follow this strategy, only with cars (i.e. we build roads and expressways into farmers fields to stimulate development). Surprise! Surprise! The ensuing development is auto-centric and designed for the transportation system (roads) that originally supported it. Trying to encourage transit use under these circumstances is a little like trying to catch mice in your house while you leave cheese out in the open.