Transport news articles

[green22]

New transit projects
www.metronews.ca/column.asp?id=634

Road repairs, subway cars arrive next year (budget)
www.insidetoronto.ca/to/n...0006c.html

Citizens on board? (representation)
www.metronews.ca/column_i...51&cid=634

Councillors a better choice
www.metronews.ca/column_i...34&cid=634

Creativity commission for TTC
www.eye.net/eye/issue/iss...orial.html

Consult with pedestrians on transit plans www.insidetoronto.ca/to/o...0611c.html

Is Milton paradise lost? (smart growth) www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs...0599119419

Propping up lemons (auto industry)
www.nowtoronto.com/issues...story2.php

Constructing danger? (Harmonization = suburban road widths) www.pulse24.com/News/Top_...2/page.asp

Downtown Parking: (should parking be free)
www.walkablestreets.com/downpark.htm

In today’s India, status comes with 4 wheels www.nytimes.com/2005/12/0...nd&emc=rss

We’re the biggest pigs in the Country (York region environmental footprint) www.yorkregion.com/yr/yr4...4925c.html

Councillors put breaks on bus fare increase (Hamilton) www.dundasstarnews.com/NA...3476868082

New Fraser River bridge okayed (Vancouver transport projects) www.canada.com/vancouvers...be39d3b683

Streetcars making a vigorous comeback (North America)
www.lightrailnow.org/feat...005-03.htm

Next RR meeting
Tuesday Jan. 3rd 6:30 to 9:00
City Hall Committee Room 3

 

[samsonyuen]

Interesting, I've never heard of the Yonge subway going up Bay before...
____________________________
Sat, January 21, 2006
The Way We Were column
By MIKE FILEY

World War II was still far from over when the TTC presented its "Rapid Transit for Toronto" report to city council on this day in 1942.

Though the war would continue for more than three more years, the TTC realized that when things did return to normal there would soon be chaos in the city if something wasn't done to improve both the public and private transportation systems.

Emphasis in the TTC's report was placed on the postwar construction of subways under Bay, Yonge and Queen Sts.

The Bay-Yonge line (under Bay St. from Union Station to just north of Davenport Rd., then northeast under Ramsden Park to Yonge St., then north to opposite Mount Pleasant Cemetery) was the most important and would result in the streetcars being removed from the downtown section of these badly clogged north-south thoroughfares.

A secondary line to handle east-west traffic congestion would also see streetcars removed and a subway built under Queen St. from Logan Ave. westerly to Trinity Park.

Both these lines would utilize the now surplus streetcars.

 

[samsonyuen]

Fri, January 27, 2006
The Way We Were column

By MIKE FILEY, TORONTO SUN

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
It was announced on this day in 1961 that in an effort to unclog the stretch of Hwy. 401 through the Toronto area, an ingenious plan to construct three-lane "collector roads" on either side of the existing six-lane highway would soon be implemented.

This was after officials of the Ontario Department of Highways had discussed -- and rejected -- the idea of keeping local traffic off Hwy. 401 altogether.

After all, as deputy minister W. J. Fulton said, the department's mandate was to build highways to fill people's needs and not to discriminate between local and through traffic or even between cars and trucks.

The new collector roads, to be built at an estimated cost of $15-20 million over two years, would prohibit local city traffic from using the through portion of the highway as simply another east-west "city" street.

 

[samsonyuen]

January 28, 2006
The Way We Were column

By MIKE FILEY
It was on this day in 1978 that Toronto's new 9.9 km Spadina subway from St. George station on the Bloor line to Wilson Ave. opened.

When proposed in the late 1960s, it was estimated to cost $80 million with an opening set for October 1977. Construction difficulties delayed that opening by three months while the costs skyrocketed past $200 million.

The route favoured by many suburban politicians -- in the median of the Spadina Expressway ( now popularly known as the Allen Rd.) -- was not the first choice for many city politicians.

Following the theory that to be cost-effective subways should be built in areas with high densities, their suggestion was to build it under either Bathurst or Dufferin Sts. Environmentalists were also concerned that the subway's projected route would destroy both the Nordheimer and Cedarvale ravines.

 

[green22]

RR Tuesday Feb 7 & transport articles

1. RR meeting
2. News
3. events
4. News articles

1.) Rocket Riders February meeting
Tues. Feb. 7th, 6:30 to 9:00 pm.
Metro Hall (John at King W.)
Special guest: Mitch stambler manager of the service planning department at the TTC
Also: crowding/ridership growth & upcoming budget debate

2.). News:

* Steve Munro now has a web site to update on various issues relating to TTC and more. www.stevemunro.ca/

* Flatlining the TTC (Jan. 25 staff presentation on crowding)
www.stevemunro.ca/wp-cont...lining.pdf

3.) Events:

* Toronto public space committee
Wednesday February 8th, 7:30pm
METRO HALL (King & John)Council Chambers
www.publicspace.ca/getinvolved.htm

* Toronto’s 2006 City Budget is open for discussion
Hear an update on the City budget and have a say in the City’s finances at 2 locations.

East York Civic Centre 850 Coxwell Ave (n/w of Coxwell & Mortimer)
Wednesday, February 8, 7 - 9:30 p.m.

Scarborough Civic Centre 150 Borough Drive (n/w of McCowan & Ellesmere)
Thursday, February 9, 7 - 9:30 p.m.
Or contact your local councillor to express your concerns.

* TTC board meeting
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 at 1pm
City hall committee room 2

4.) News articles

TTC tackles crowding www.metronews.ca/column_i...54&cid=634

TTC growth plan questioned www.metronews.ca/column_i...51&cid=634

York subway open house & land use study (Wed. Feb. 8)
www.insidetoronto.ca/to/n...1848c.html

Art adds perspective www.metronews.ca/column_i...10&cid=634

Use GST cut for transit www.metronews.ca/column_i...91&cid=634

No feet in this street’s plan
www.nowtoronto.com/issues...story4.php

Two against four: the war of the wheels (bicycle) www.theglobeandmail.com/s...PNational/

The power of infiltration (change laws to create desired development)
www.planning.org/planning...fault1.htm

Transport plan will only worsen gridlock, critics say(Vancouver/MOT) www.theglobeandmail.com/s...ry/?query=

Translink faces firestorm over impending parking levy (Vancouver/GVRD) www.canada.com/vancouvers...a0952adb0c

Endless traffic, can it end (NYC) www.transalt.org/press/me...6/256.html

Top papers ask, is the world heading for doom? (global warming) www.editorandpublisher.co...1001920362

Thanks, Roger Brook green22@sympatico.ca

 

[green22]

(from Vancourver GVRD parking tax)
www.canada.com/vancouvers...a0952adb0c

-White finds it "reprehensible" that when the company expanded in 2001 the municipality told it how much parking space it needed. Then it turns around and taxes on that number.-

It is understandable that the Sun would be against this tax, since this tax does not disproportionatly target the poor (like lottery, cigarrettes, beer etc). However I do agree that if parking adds to traffic which costs the region money, and it is trying to control traffic generation, then municipalities should not force people to provide large amounts (more than market requires) of parking and then tax them on it.
As in Vancouver, the Toronto act has just empowered the city to tax parking. This is a pilot project which the Province intends to bring to other municipalities. I would hope that if the parking tax is brought in, municipalities will provide some leeway to businesses and/ or residents as to how much parking they have to provide. In that way businesses that require no, or reduced parking, and thereby contribute less to motorized traffic will be rewarded whereas walmart and buisnesses which flood the street with trucks or cars will pay their share.

This could provide an advantage to rail, transit and alternative transport based industry or businesses. However, if all businesses have to provide the same amount of parking (parking regulations) whether they require it or not, then the system provides no monetary advantages for businesses which do not add significantly to the costs of roads/ pollution/congestion.

One potential loophole to this tax is the drive-through, this is partly taken care of in Toronto. However since parking regulations are not based on actual demand for parking spaces they do not currently lower parking requirements for businesses which have drive-throughs. However if the market were allowed to determine parking requirements it is likely that drive-through locations could eliminate parking altogether and avoid the parking tax, except for the lanes themselves. If the parking tax is designed to pay for road use, drive-through lanes would then have to be taxed at a level higher than parking spots if parking requirements were reduced or eliminated.

While drive-throughs without parking lots (if allowed) have the advantage of requiring less land and less pavement, they add extra pollution by idling.

 

[EnviroTO]

Any parking tax should start above the level of parking the developer or land owner was mandated by the city have available in my opinion. I don't know why the city would even make parking mandatory... wouldn't any developer build parking anyways if there was an absolute need for it?

 

[green22]

Parking requirements are the result of historical processes. While today government indicates a desire to control or lower car use, in the 50's and 60's cars for all was considered our optimal future that must be prepared and built for. Because of this the city decided that onstreet parking on government property (the streets and government parking lots) should be free or highly subsidized by all citizens to make car use cheap and convenient.

Because government parking (as well as roads) are free or highly subsidized they are often overused. Governments do not want the tenants and visitors of new buildings to compete for this parking with existing users and so they enact parking requirements. Parking requirements force each new building to provide parking that is more convenient (on site) and just as cheap (raise supply relative to demand) as on-street or municipal parking authority lots.

Many people say that until the government charges market rates for on-street or parking authority parking, high on-site parking requirements will be required. The government has always had a hard time charging auto users for the costs of vehicle use. It's no wonder that the only toll highway in the Province is privately owned and our Premier has publicly made a policy of trying to force the private company to lower prices. Only the unelected private company and court system explain why the 407 can charge tolls which pay its costs.

 

[Mike in TO]

I don't know why the city would even make parking mandatory... wouldn't any developer build parking anyways if there was an absolute need for it?

Enviro, I know of many builders and developers that complain about the municipal parking requirements. In many cases they are forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to build parking spaces that no one will ever use. There are many condo buildings and rental buildings in the city with virtually completely unused levels of parking. Some builders are still trying to get rid of parking they had to build do to requirements years ago.

Toronto seriously needs to examine parking requirements in neww buildings. The costs of providing parking that isn't used is making downtown living more expensive than it need to be. Building a fourth floor of underground parking that isn't used is very very expensive and the costs are then spread out across all the units.

 

[EnviroTO]

Many people say that until the government charges market rates for on-street or parking authority parking, high on-site parking requirements will be required.

But is that really true? Wouldn't people living or doing business in the city wake up to the fact that the street parking is maxing out and that if they want parking they should choose a development which provides it?

 

[green22]

Many people say that until the government charges market rates for on-street or parking authority parking, high on-site parking requirements will be required.

Although much of the support for parking requirements comes from government itself, a lot comes from the community. Nimbyism is created when people who currently receive the free or subsidized perk of free parking worry that new residents will try to share it, making it less convenient. They thus oppose any intensification and try to force new buildings to provide as much parking as possible. The other problem with free or subsidized on street parking is can create line ups and idling of cars waiting to use the parking. Even in NYC most of the parking below 59th street as free, since it's hard to take a perk away from auto owners.www.transalt.org/press/me...6/256.html

If the city didn't force everyone to provide an abandance of parking new residents would fight over the limited subsidized resource. Let the market take care of this and people have one less reason to hate density. Also, less parking = less traffic generation. Traffic is another major reason people hate increased density.

If we let the market determine parking requirements, lossened density and zoning laws we'd have a lot less free parking and a bit more paid parking. A parking tax would also even the playing field so that walmart could help pay it's share of the municipal transportation budget created by it's auto-oriented format. However charging Walmart for providing so much pavement when the city required it in the first place, would be hypocritical.
There were 3 zoning notices up on Laird avenue for their 'Lifestyle Mall', they were to try to add more height (a 2nd story), more floorspace and less parking than the retail zone permitted. When our regulations don't even allow a slightly better box to be built we're in trouble.