ADRM
Senior Member
Insufficiently.
|
|
|
Insufficiently.
steveintoronto
Superstar
What's so profound is that like the Danes and the Dutch, the Swiss (in this case Zurich) made a *social compact* a generation ago to make things better, and make the city for people, not cars. Take a look at their transportation map:
http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project_details.cfm?id=93&index=93&domain=
Zurich has a population of less than .5M. Less than Hamilton.
And Toronto wants to claim to be "World Class"? But what standard? Bravado? Parking spots? Pedestrian deaths?
LNahid2000
Senior Member
That video reminded me of the next stop screens which I LOVED while I was in Zurich. YRT/Viva was piloting the exact same screen in York Region, but I'm not sure what happened with the project.
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...dways-construction.19768/page-55#post-1211236
coopEng
Active Member
What's so profound is that like the Danes and the Dutch, the Swiss (in this case Zurich) made a *social compact* a generation ago to make things better, and make the city for people, not cars. Take a look at their transportation map:
http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project_details.cfm?id=93&index=93&domain=
Zurich has a population of less than .5M. Less than Hamilton.
And Toronto wants to claim to be "World Class"? But what standard? Bravado? Parking spots? Pedestrian deaths?
Not that I'm trying to say Toronto has it great, but is that 0.5M population for the entire City including inner suburbs (like old City of Toronto compared to Toronto with North York, Scarborugh, etc) and how would that relate to population density as I would imagine Toronto being in the sprawling North America would have a much less dense population thus being more difficult to serve. Are all the coloured lines grade separated routes (like our subways) or on street LRT similar to Spadina?
Fred.S
Active Member
That map is the tram and local bus system for Zurich city, which is comparable to maybe the old city of toronto (think our streetcar coverage area).
For another comparison, the Zurich canton (sort of equivalent to a regional municipality) is about the geographic size of Toronto plus York Region up to Hwy 9. Canton Zurich has 1.5 million people, while that area of Toronto and York is probably around 3 million. Zurich has a low density, but because of the fare integration, pulsed and predictable timetables, intermixed local and express trains, and built form that clusters density around stations, the canton has one of the highest transit mode shares in the world.
The attached map is the canton transit map. You can basically think of the s-bahn lines to be more equivalent to our subway system, though physically it looks more like regional rail.
For another comparison, the Zurich canton (sort of equivalent to a regional municipality) is about the geographic size of Toronto plus York Region up to Hwy 9. Canton Zurich has 1.5 million people, while that area of Toronto and York is probably around 3 million. Zurich has a low density, but because of the fare integration, pulsed and predictable timetables, intermixed local and express trains, and built form that clusters density around stations, the canton has one of the highest transit mode shares in the world.
The attached map is the canton transit map. You can basically think of the s-bahn lines to be more equivalent to our subway system, though physically it looks more like regional rail.
Attachments
steveintoronto
Superstar
What's also interesting about Zurich is that it is one of the lower tax regions of Switzerland. There's some excellent discussion on this on-line, my apologies, I failed to bookmark the links, but comparison is made of Zurich (largest conurbation in Suisse) to Bern (half the size, but also with an excellent rail and transit system). Bern is the 'socialist' capital of Helvetia. The point is, (and Fribourg also comes into the discussion as one of the lowest tax enclaves) that *funding* *as we see it* is not the real determinant of the very successful Swiss model. It's *mindset!* (And thus priorities) The Swiss remade themselves when it comes to the automobile a generation ago. Something a number of other nations have done. Something that remains a theory in Canada...
Last edited:
pman
Senior Member
I agree completely that our built environment is ultimately the reflection of our aspirations, of our vision for what a good city should be. That's where CHF and Canada differ radically, and maybe it's understandable. They're a more densely populated, much richer country with a city form that predates the automobile. We're a poorer country with a harsher climate, extraordinarily low population density even in our inhabited areas, and cities that were mostly built after the automobile became the dominant mode of transport.
Many UT posters, myself included, seem to travel a lot and understand the benefits of living in cities with high-quality public realms, effective transit, and reduced privilege for drivers. It's a pleasure to be a pedestrian in a great world city. But pleasure, delight and utility aren't part of the Toronto equation, which begins and ends with suburban identity politics. Sadly, this is a place where we elect Ford, Mamolitti, Pasternak, Karygiannis, Holyday, DMW - I could go on - all from the suburbs and all reflexively hostile to anything that would make Toronto more like Zurich and less like a frozen Phoenix. So many of our divisions about what a good Toronto should be result from the urban - suburban fault line that was created with Metro and entrenched with amalgamation. Most of our Council would fall in the Holyday camp because most of the population of this city live in 1950's - style suburbs and demand that nothing can ever be done to make even a tiny portion of the city slightly more urban. Why a councilor from Etobicoke should have any say on what happens on King is beyond me, but as long as he does you can be sure that whatever trial transit mall the city produces will be half-assed and transitory.
What to do? Probably nothing is possible. Toronto's auto-centric structure is a direct result of our political structure, which will never change. DMW and the rest of the anti-downtown suburban crew will continue to run this city in the future. They're giving their suburban voters exactly what they want. As for the minority who want something better, to experience a good city we'll have to travel a lot, or leave town completely.
And King Street? Let's aim low. It's the Toronto way.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Excellent post! But we may differ on a few points well worth further discussion, because I think you are cutting slack for Toronto where none should be: Canada, like Australia, is much more an urban demographic than the US or UK, for instance. This defies the senses of many, how could that possibly be? I don't have definitive reference at this moment, the 'Google state of mind' isn't focused right now, I will provide it later, as this is a very important point, and you set-up an excellent basis for further discussion, but for now:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/art...d-ranks-of-vertical-dwellers/article24697531/
Not exactly on point, but I will detail later.
Wealth: It's questionable, and this is worthy of much further discussion. Whether CHF is wealthier or not (and per capita v absolute GDP) obscures the fact that Canada is one of the richest nations. Again, I'll detail later, but I think it's that case of *priorities* that has us in such poor stance, not potential funding. Also many Cdn cities are very poor at urban planning, let alone efficacy of transit spending.
The King St Project really is a bellwether for this City, and it is aimed *very low*, and slipping already. The rumours of the Bloor Bike Lane's demise (which are incredibly poorly implemented to begin with) really are a canary in the cold (sic) mine for King Transit Mall.
I've been intrigued with what the Swiss have done with their rail and transit systems, and this vid illustrates how behind many European nations we are
Cab View Train "Fribourg - Berne" (Switzerland)
Fribourg is smaller than Guelph, and Bern is about a quarter million people, and yet this RER reaches 140 kmh in stretches. You'll note very little in the way of density between the two centres mentioned, and yet their *commuter services* go faster than VIA does in this nation. This is a double-decker EMU.
I watched a number of excellent vids (as well as reading) on Zurich trams on Youtube last night. There's a plethora of them. Like yourself, I'm miffed that we're not doing better. Must run, we have to continue this conversation, you make excellent points.
Edit to Add: [By 2011, fewer than one in five (18.9%) people lived in a rural area. This shift reflected major changes in Canada's economy and society over several decades.]
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015004-eng.htm
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
I really don't agree with that at all. Most of Canada and the US is dependent on cras. Although it is changing a bit but not as much as ppel on her seem to think. Right now most Millennials living in the city of Toronto don't own cars or even have driver's licenses. Just building public transit will not mean poel will use it as it may not be always convent for them to use.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
The reason why trains in North America don't reach the speed of train in Europe or Asia is because of the infrastructure isn't available, high speed trains require dedicated rights of way that are 100% straight as much as possible, any curves have to be extremely wide, we don't have the space to do this her because of how close the cites are and because we built bigger highways.
pman
Senior Member
But I agree with you. Most of North America, including Toronto, completely privileges driving over other transport modes (walking, cycling and transit). Here in Toronto, it means that people who have the choice often elect to drive because it's faster for most trips and their time is valuable. That's rational: we have collectively chosen to under-build and mis-locate transit, while we don't charge at all for road occupancy. I also agree that just building public transit doesn't mean people will use it, as the failed Sheppard Subway and demand studies for SSE demonstrate. However, there's enough international evidence to allow us to conclude that single occupant vehicle traffic adapts to the capacity of the road system - build more roads and you get more traffic. The link below offers one example, though in what passes for municipal debate in Toronto it would likely be dismissed by suburban councilors on the grounds that NPR is a socialist conspiracy against regular folks. Like the CBC, but with pledge drives.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/137708751/more-roads-may-pave-way-to-more-traffic
Conversely, cities that offer high quality, properly located public transit have heavy use on their systems. I don't have a citation for that - it's based on my personal experience of doing really heavy international business travel from 1989 through 2014. You make a good point about convenience, if that's what you mean by "convent." Transit does have to be convenient. To return to the discussion topic, travel on the King and Queen streetcars is highly inconvenient. Trip times are far too variable, short turns happen too frequently, wait times can range to the absurd, bunching is a problem, and peak crowding can make boarding impossible. A lot of this is due to automobile traffic on these routes, which we have permitted without restriction up to this point even though the streetcars carry a lot more people than cars. So I hope you'll let your councilor know you support this timid little almost nothing of a pilot project to see if we can move people slightly more efficiently along a small stretch of road. Don't worry - the car will still be king around here.
steveintoronto
Superstar
We don't have the space? Really?
It's because we're too preoccupied sucking on exhaust pipes and considering it normal.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
yup pretty much highways took up the space that a high speed train could run in.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
It's because high speed rail isn't going to be sustainable in Canada. It never will be. HSR is barely sustainable in the US Northeast Corridor, which is smaller than the Quebec-Windsor corridor and has a population of more than 50 million.
Look around the world. HSR only works in places where there's literally no other alternative, since airports are pushed to their capacity.