Rob Ford's Toronto

[freshcutgrass]

So pray tell freshcutgrass you are saying that public servants are picked by "shareholders" (citizens) who represent their pocketbooks?

Although it appears your post is facetious, no....elected civil servants are not there to represent the pocketbooks of those who elected them...or their own interests. They aren't even there to represent "taxpayers" in general necessarily.

They are there to represent the public good (which half the time means saving us from....ourselves).

 

[PCC]

Worked real well for L.A., and it's working great for the 905 isn't it?

Pictures don't tell the whole story. Any city or town can look bad when you take a picture at peak (heck, when the swing bridge is open, Bobcaygeon looks congested). A jam-packed bus, streetcar, or subway looks just as bad.

I've driven both Toronto and LA freeways and LA's are much better. They have bad traffic jams, but shorter in duration because you don't have to grind through town on on or two routes but only in choke points that ease when you reach a jct. Whereas in Toronto you're stuck with the 401 or Gardiner east/west, and the DVP or 427 north/south. Everything is a choke point. It is inevitable that jams will occur at peak times in any artery as everything has a point where capacity is reached. Ever drive the 401 at 3:00am?

Charlotte, NC, is the worst US traffic I've been in, but I bet it's better now with the belt line finished.

Transit is not the Panacea to cure congestion, but is one of the useful tools in the box. More freeways is another tool. Transit is not practical, or even possible, for everyone in a car on the road.

 

[tkip]

The traffic congestion and chaos in Toronto is the result of decades of bad urban planning and funding issues. Didn't happen over night. We're stuck with this for a long time. Probably for the rest of my life anyway. As for Ford being self serving? I don't see any evidence that he's any less self serving than most of the other politicians. I would say he's singleminded in his quest for making cuts though.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Transit is not the Panacea to cure congestion

There is no cure for congestion...only ways to improve capacity within a corridor. Public transit is the most effect way to improve capacity and therefore allow for more economic activity within it's corridor.

Transit is not practical, or even possible, for everyone in a car on the road.

It doesn't have to be for "everyone". For the majority, it is possible to take that trip via public transit. Practical is open for interpretation. It appears that for many drivers, they are willing to pay the price in both dollars and time to ensure they can get from point a to b in the luxury of their private vehicles.

So...remove all the trips by cars that could have been made by public transit (the majority of trips by car), and there would be plenty of space for those that can't to get around without the congestion.

Building more freeways is NOT a tool to decrease congestion.

Making car drivers pay the real cost of owning and operating their vehicles is one tool that would get many to change their travelling habits.

Improving transit service/capacity is another tool to lure drivers out of their cars.

But there's really only one way to truly deal with our road congestion...and that's better urban planning/built environment policies. Trying to come up with solutions to try and sustain an unsustainable scenario is just stupid. It's a little late for that for the 905, so making it better will be a long, painful journey, and it will probably never be even acceptable in our lifetimes. Take a bow post war urban planning "pros".

Even the old city of Toronto, which actually has a chance at efficient, sustainable means of travel, will be facing an uphill battle.....our own mayor is even more delusional than his suburban counterparts about what to do. His #1 priority is to get streetcars off the roads, because they are "in the way" of cars. That's right....the most efficient users of the road system, that also happens to be zero emissions, the safest way to travel and makes money...is the enemy (in the "war on cars").

Maybe there is a "war on the car"....and maybe there isn't. But one thing is for sure....there is in the mind of our mayor. And he's fighting for the wrong side.

 

[Tewder]

But there's really only one way to truly deal with our road congestion...and that's better urban planning/built environment policies. Trying to come up with solutions to try and sustain an unsustainable scenario is just stupid. It's a little late for that for the 905, so making it better will be a long, painful journey, and it will probably never be even acceptable in our lifetimes. Take a bow post war urban planning "pros".

I don't feel it's too late for the 905 or inner-GTHA connectivity. If we were truly embracing the Places to Grow plan we would be promoting development and density within already established 'urban' nodes throughout the GTHA, which would facilitate the better connecting of local municipal transit systems to a wider regional/inter-region system. In other words, mini hubs surrounding the main hub that is Toronto, that are all connected together. Fortunately the GTHA area is not that big really in terms of area, and the overall population is already large, and large enough to make this kind of investment in transit feesible and sustainable.

You're right though that this takes planning and funding. The shame is that people don't realize that with a faster, more accessible, and better integrated transit system, mass transit would be a way better alternative to the car...

 

[ttk77]

You're right though that this takes planning and funding. The shame is that people don't realize that with a faster, more accessible, and better integrated transit system, mass transit would be a way better alternative to the car...

Agreed 100%. If I had a choice between sitting and reading a book for 1/2 hr on a clean, comfortable transit system or sitting behind the wheel of a car for the same period of time I would choose transit every time. Even now with the transit trip taking longer I still prefer it. Unfortunately among car commuters there's still a stigma that taking public transit is for "poor people". Getting rid of that stigma would do more for public transit than any half-baked subway-to-nowhere expansion plan. Unfortunately our mayor and his lackeys on council are clueless.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I don't feel it's too late for the 905 or inner-GTHA connectivity. If we were truly embracing the Places to Grow plan we would be promoting development and density within already established 'urban' nodes throughout the GTHA, which would facilitate the better connecting of local municipal transit systems to a wider regional/inter-region system. In other words, mini hubs surrounding the main hub that is Toronto, that are all connected together. Fortunately the GTHA area is not that big really in terms of area, and the overall population is already large, and large enough to make this kind of investment in transit feesible and sustainable.

You're right though that this takes planning and funding. The shame is that people don't realize that with a faster, more accessible, and better integrated transit system, mass transit would be a way better alternative to the car...

The problem I have with that, is it does not put enough burden on the 905 region to pay for their mistakes, and penalizes the 416 for doing a much better job (although certainly not perfect). The 905 deliberately chose to do this, and I think they should not be bailed out so easily. If we keep subsidizing their poor choices, they will simply continue to try and maintain the unsustainable to the very last second...that's what people do.

You can say we are building regional transit "hubs" and that all sounds very nice. But I think building VERY expensive subways to service suburban highways is sending a very bad message. This is also not very economically sustainable transit design either. And blowing our brains out spending all our money on transit that is not cost efficient to operate is making the whole house of cards even less stable, because while governments (read Queen's Park) occasionally love to blow big money on flashy photo-op friendly capital projects, they have a disdain for funding the day-to-day, long-term operation of it.

Personally, I'm tired of subsidizing other people's stupid lifestyle choices....and then paying to fix the problem when it falls apart.

Let the 905 choke.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I'm no fan of the 905 but there's a big difference between the planners who facilitated the suburban sprawl of the suburbs and the people who live there, many of whom -- especially these days -- are immigrants or middle-class types w/ kids who are priced out of downtown living.

Transit, long thought of as a means of transport for the poor, is being flipped on its head. We're now seeing the rich flock to homes around rail hubs while lower income people are stuck at the edges, forced to relying on their cars or the same bus service we keep cutting back on.

 

[GraphicMatt]

For those who haven't seen it yet, I put together an edited & annotated version of Rob Ford's interview with CP24 from Friday:

[video=youtube;6bbb_NOpqGY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bbb_NOpqGY[/video]

More notes on the interview here: http://fordfortoronto.mattelliott.c...otes-on-the-mayors-interview-with-cp24-video/

Worth watching, if only to get a sense of where the mayor's head is at.

 

[Tewder]

I'm no fan of the 905 but there's a big difference between the planners who facilitated the suburban sprawl of the suburbs and the people who live there, many of whom -- especially these days -- are immigrants or middle-class types w/ kids who are priced out of downtown living.

Transit, long thought of as a means of transport for the poor, is being flipped on its head. We're now seeing the rich flock to homes around rail hubs while lower income people are stuck at the edges, forced to relying on their cars or the same bus service we keep cutting back on.

Agreed, besides which the idea is to make the 905 less suburban, thereby facilitating better choices - or repetance if that's how you feel about it - in the 905... and even if you still happen to feel the 905 should choke, well it's pretty hard to ignore that regardless of what you feel about the 905 the 416 core ultimately suffers as a result of regional congestion. The 416 would be about as interesting as downtown Detroit if the region were no longer linked to it, for commerce or otherwise, which is to say that 905ers are subsidizing the 'lifestyle' of the likes of Freshcutgrass just as surely.

 

[JoeParez]

The problem I have with that, is it does not put enough burden on the 905 region to pay for their mistakes, and penalizes the 416 for doing a much better job (although certainly not perfect). The 905 deliberately chose to do this.

Personally, I'm tired of subsidizing other people's stupid lifestyle choices....and then paying to fix the problem when it falls apart.

Let the 905 choke.

 

[Marko]

It doesn't have to be for "everyone". For the majority, it is possible to take that trip via public transit. Practical is open for interpretation. It appears that for many drivers, they are willing to pay the price in both dollars and time to ensure they can get from point a to b in the luxury of their private vehicles.

So...remove all the trips by cars that could have been made by public transit (the majority of trips by car), and there would be plenty of space for those that can't to get around without the congestion.

You keep saying "majority" as if it's an accepted truth, which I question. I would say the split is far more even, or perhaps favors the car, but I can't support with stats that I don't have. if you can refute this with some of your own, please do.

Building more freeways is NOT a tool to decrease congestion.

Whether it's a good tool or affordable tool or environmentally friendly tool may be up for debate - but whether it is or isn't a tool is not. It certainly IS one of the tools available.

Making car drivers pay the real cost of owning and operating their vehicles is one tool that would get many to change their travelling habits.

You don't think drivers do pay the real cost of owning and operating their own vehicles? Or do you mean the real cost of roadway construction and maintenance, or other indirect costs? Not only do drivers pay every level of property, sales and income tax as everyone else - they also pay rather large % of taxes on the fuel they put into their cars, which generates far more tax revenue than is used for roads, infrastructure, snow cleaning, hell - even the cost of emergency services in the case of accidents.

Improving transit service/capacity is another tool to lure drivers out of their cars.

Since drivers should be expected to pay the full cost of their chosen method of transport, would you also be in support of transit users also paying the full cost of their choice? Ie: the full cost of infrastructure, maintenance, operations, fuel, etc... or should this be subsidized by drivers (as it is), or subsidized by general revenues (which it is). I'm not saying transit shouldn't (it certainly should be subsidized), but question your double standards.

But there's really only one way to truly deal with our road congestion...and that's better urban planning/built environment policies. Trying to come up with solutions to try and sustain an unsustainable scenario is just stupid. It's a little late for that for the 905, so making it better will be a long, painful journey, and it will probably never be even acceptable in our lifetimes. Take a bow post war urban planning "pros".

Even the old city of Toronto, which actually has a chance at efficient, sustainable means of travel, will be facing an uphill battle.....our own mayor is even more delusional than his suburban counterparts about what to do. His #1 priority is to get streetcars off the roads, because they are "in the way" of cars. That's right....the most efficient users of the road system, that also happens to be zero emissions, the safest way to travel and makes money...is the enemy (in the "war on cars").

Maybe there is a "war on the car"....and maybe there isn't. But one thing is for sure....there is in the mind of our mayor. And he's fighting for the wrong side.

I agree on the first paragraphs, but disagree somewhat on the second. If the streetcar itself is low or zero emissions, but slows down cars by 10, 20 or hell 50%, does it not indirectly increase the emission of a far greater number of vehicles stuck behind it? Does creating sets of green lights for streetcars not also increase the wait time for an even larger numbers of cars, buses and trucks that have to wait for it? If it's zero emission, then maybe for the sake of the environment, the streetcar is the one that should idle?

I'm all for efficiency and emission reduction, regardless of which technology is used. Better transit = fewer drivers = less traffic = less polution, but one is not more important than the other, they must be carefully balanced. Drivers should support the notion of better transit because it gets more drivers off the road they're on, shortens their own drive time and reduces their emissions. Transit users should support good roads and highways, since it means even their buses and streetcars will move faster and remember that driver revenues (mostly gas taxes) subsidize that seat they're sitting on, even if it's a subway car or train.

 

[Thanos]

Whether it's a good tool or affordable tool or environmentally friendly tool may be up for debate - but whether it is or isn't a tool is not. It certainly IS one of the tools available.

And it should be the last tool used. There are far more efficient ways.

You don't think drivers do pay the real cost of owning and operating their own vehicles? Or do you mean the real cost of roadway construction and maintenance, or other indirect costs? Not only do drivers pay every level of property, sales and income tax as everyone else - they also pay rather large % of taxes on the fuel they put into their cars, which generates far more tax revenue than is used for roads, infrastructure, snow cleaning, hell - even the cost of emergency services in the case of accidents.

No they do not. The property and sales income tax is paid by everyone regardless of car or not. Large % of fuel tax? You gotta be kidding me. Look at BC and Quebec who both have better transits and Europe as well. The fuel taxes are much higher. You are not paying your share as a driver. Higher fuel taxes, road tolls, etc are needed.

Since drivers should be expected to pay the full cost of their chosen method of transport, would you also be in support of transit users also paying the full cost of their choice? Ie: the full cost of infrastructure, maintenance, operations, fuel, etc... or should this be subsidized by drivers (as it is), or subsidized by general revenues (which it is). I'm not saying transit shouldn't (it certainly should be subsidized), but question your double standards.

Transit users are paying their share with the ridiculously high transit fees and lack of infrastructure. You really don't understand the long term benefit of better public transit. It will keep the road infrastructure costs lower as the roads see less traffic, faster commute times, etc. Does your time matter that little to you?

I agree on the first paragraphs, but disagree somewhat on the second. If the streetcar itself is low or zero emissions, but slows down cars by 10, 20 or hell 50%, does it not indirectly increase the emission of a far greater number of vehicles stuck behind it? Does creating sets of green lights for streetcars not also increase the wait time for an even larger numbers of cars, buses and trucks that have to wait for it? If it's zero emission, then maybe for the sake of the environment, the streetcar is the one that should idle?

You're assuming that the car is somehow keeping you on the road. Last i checked there are plenty of other streets you can use that do not have streetcars. And the goal of streetcars and the like is to get you out of your vehicle and into public transit. However, if you can't see that then you can't blame the streetcar which is carrying over 100 people because one person driving an inefficient mode of transportation is stuck behind it.

I'm all for efficiency and emission reduction, regardless of which technology is used. Better transit = fewer drivers = less traffic = less polution, but one is not more important than the other, they must be carefully balanced. Drivers should support the notion of better transit because it gets more drivers off the road they're on, shortens their own drive time and reduces their emissions. Transit users should support good roads and highways, since it means even their buses and streetcars will move faster and remember that driver revenues (mostly gas taxes) subsidize that seat they're sitting on, even if it's a subway car or train.

Well one is more important than the other. If you don't prioritize transit issues than how on earth will they be improved. It takes a lot of up front capital to improve our lack of public transit infrastructure. And unfortunately for you, in order to improve public transit, the car has to take a back seat for the next decade. If public transit is not improved then you won't get the people out of their cars. And what is it with the suburbs and their refusal to have LRTs? They're cheaper than subways and would be a perfect solution for the low density areas.

I've been thinking that maybe the best solution for Ontario is to allow a few private transit companies to open up and operate throughout the GTA.

 

[PCC]

You don't have a choice to take transit if you are a service technician employed in a trade. It is impractical to make service calls on a bus given the parts you must have on hand, and even with the traffic, it is still faster to do sales call in a car. Transit is great for people that travel from one point to another and back again, but for those that do not (from A to B to C to D to E to F to G, etc.), it is just not practical. Many office workers don't ever consider those not tied to a desk when they think transit, but it has limitations.

For me to take transit to work (assuming I can live without my car, which I can't because I'l "on the road" daily), it'd be a 1 hour trip one way... requires transfering three buses. It is 12 minutes by car (granted, I travel the opposite direction of the majority in the AM and PM and don't get any real traffic).

Agreed that the more on transit, the fewer on the roads, and that is why I'm all for more subways. They need subways everywhere. The LRT's just don't have the capacity that we need in Toronto... prehaps as feeders to subways acting as main trunks, but before that happens they've gotta build the trunks. Yup, subway is expensive as heck, but the long term idea is to build as much capacity as possible, because it will be filled. The subway is it.

 

[Thanos]

I completely agree with you PCC. However, how many people who do drive actually need to drive?
LRTs can be used to feed to the subways in the city core. Having LRTs to feed an Eglinton subway line from the North, other LRTs that can connect to a DRL from the east and west.
Many larger cities use regional trains and LRTs for the suburbs. Why do Torontonians and 905ers think their special and deserve subways everywhere, even in the middle of nowhere.