Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

When was the point of transit to be "faster" ? I suspect that's hardly the case less in rush hour and the like; That's not just a Toronto comment, I suspect it's similar in big cities as well (e.g. London, New York).

Concrete example, I like in NYCC, and just about most times of the week, I can downtown faster by driving then taking the TTC.

It's more about convivence i.e. not needing to fight / find parking, not needing to deal with the act of driving it self (that many find stressful), so on and so forth.
 
We went for dinner last night at Dundas and University, and despite living right on the King Streetcar line just a few minutes from the subway stations, we drove there. Even for dedicated transit enthusiasts, getting around even in the heart of downtown is very often a lot easier by driving rather than transit. the "war on the car" rhetoric is truly laughable.
 
We went for dinner last night at Dundas and University, and despite living right on the King Streetcar line just a few minutes from the subway stations, we drove there. Even for dedicated transit enthusiasts, getting around even in the heart of downtown is very often a lot easier by driving rather than transit. the "war on the car" rhetoric is truly laughable.

This is because the City of Toronto continues to give #1 priority to the automobile over cycling, walking, and public transit. Unlike in Europe...

European Commission prioritises cyclists and pedestrians in cities for "first time in history"


From link.

The European Commission has proposed an overhaul of urban infrastructure to encourage more walking and cycling as part of the EU's aim to become a net-zero continent by 2050.

If passed, the Efficient and Green Mobility package would require the 424 largest cities in the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) to hash out sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs) centred on these kinds of "active mobility" modes by 2025.


Supported by increased funding, this would help the EU wean its cities off fossil fuel vehicles, ease congestion and noise pollution as well as working towards the decarbonisation goals set out in the European Green Deal, which require emissions from cars to be cut by 55 per cent come 2030.

The EU has already tripled its spending on cycling and walking projects in recent years, investing €2 billion between 2014 and 2020.

But the Efficient and Green Mobility package is unprecedented, according to the European Cyclists' Federation, in that it elevates walking and cycling to an EU-wide policy priority.

"This is the first time in history that the European Commission prioritises investment in these modes as the backbone of urban mobility," the federation said.
Proposals could cut emissions by 90 per cent


The package includes four proposals aimed at decarbonising the European transport system.

These focus on overhauling the TEN-T system of interconnected railways, waterways and roads across the continent, increasing long-distance and cross-border rail traffic, updating and developing smart mobility services such as mobility apps, and improving urban mobility by focusing on public transport, walking and cycling.

By moving people and goods from fossil fuel-powered cars and trucks onto a cleaner "multimodal transport network", the European Commission says these measures could cut transport emissions by up to 90 per cent.

As part of the proposed legislative overhaul, the SUMPs originally introduced as a voluntary initiative in the EU's 2013 Urban Mobility Package would be made mandatory for hundreds of large and medium-sized cities in the TEN-T.
In addition, the guidelines for formulating these plans would be revised to prioritise expanding and improving infrastructure for bikes, pedestrians, e-bikes, scooters and public transport.

This would include creating quality road infrastructure that protects users from fatal accidents, maintaining the "continuity and accessibility of cycling paths" and, eventually, formulating rules to improve the safety of micro-mobility vehicles, which have been responsible for a growing number of accidents in recent years.

Local and regional authorities would be supported by targeted funding in order to implement their plans.
Cycle lanes save money


According to the EC, this would not just generate emissions reductions but also help to improve the health of local residents.

"Active mobility modes such as walking and cycling are low-cost and zero-emission forms of mobility which can also bring about health co-benefits associated to more active lifestyles," reads the Urban Mobility Framework of the Efficient and Green Mobility package.

"In order to develop their full potential, they should be properly addressed in urban mobility policies at all levels of governance and funding, transport planning, awareness-raising, allocation of space, safety regulations and adequate infrastructure."

Installing bike paths can even lead to economic benefits for cities as medical costs and travel times are reduced, the EC argued.

In Helsinki, for example, a study found that for every euro invested in cycle lanes, the city saved €3.60.
Later this year, the EC is set to recommend that member states roll out a national programme for all their cities to adopt a SUMP "with public transport and active mobility at its heart".

The news comes after a number of cities including Paris, Milan and London took street space away from cars and reallocated it to cyclists and pedestrians in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, while New York established cycle paths on its Brooklyn and Queensboro Bridges.
 
The "war on the car" rhetoric is truly laughable.

They sure aren't making driving any easier though. Lower speed limits (like insanely low) red light and speed cameras everywhere, losing lanes of driving and parking to bicycle lanes, huge streetcars that are even harder to get past, parking getting more and more expensive, gas more expensive, insurance more expensive, cars new and used more expensive. It definitely is getting less and less easy/fun to be a driver each year. And hey I'm sure that's the point. Call it a 'war' or not it is getting more and more miserable to drive in Toronto with each passing year. Cycling, pedestrian, public transit is the benefactor of all of this.
 
It definitely is getting less and less easy/fun to be a driver each year. And hey I'm sure that's the point. Call it a 'war' or not it is getting more and more miserable to drive in Toronto with each passing year. Cycling, pedestrian, public transit is the benefactor of all of this.
It's been a pretty crappy experience to be a cyclist, transit-user or pedestrian in North American cities for the last few decades. It still is, in most cities - and in most (if not all) parts of Toronto. I look forward to our achingly-slow progress to a less car-centric city.
 
Of all things, parking is way too cheap in this city, especially street parking. It's nuts how cheap it is to park on most main streets.

Especially when parking tickets are taken to be the price of parking in Toronto, if they only come around once a week or once a month. The fines should be based on the car owner's income.

From link.
No matter rich or poor, there is a possibility that you may at some point receive a parking fine, regardless of your income. Recently, a suggestion has been made to change the law in order to force the rich to pay a higher parking fine than the less wealthy, a measure that would affect many people. However, is this a good idea simply because they can afford to pay the fine?

In some senses, this suggestion to base monetary fines on the income of the offender is a good idea. For example, if the fine was £100, this would be petty change for a millionaire, but a lot of money for someone living below the poverty line, and so therefore it would be better if the fine reflected income. In Sweden, speeding fines are based on the driver’s income, which has meant that in some cases, drivers are forced to pay vast sums of money for their actions, such as in 2010 when a driver was fined over £500,000 for speeding at 180mph. I think we can presume that they will think twice before speeding again!

It is also important to think of the consequences for the fine, as for a wealthy person, it is not likely to affect them at all, whereas someone of lower income may have to cut back on weekly food allowances or house payments because they can no longer afford to pay them.

At the current rate, parking fines, meant as a deterrent against offenders, may deter only those who could not afford to make the same mistake twice, but not discourage those who could repeatedly park in dangerous places and simply pay the fine multiple times. In this way, this could lead to rich, dangerous drivers who repeatedly break the law because they are able to pay their way out of it. Therefore, if parking fines were higher for the wealthy, so much so it seems like much money for them, they may be put into the mindset that illegal parking will cause them to lose money, and so refrain from doing so.

However, if this new way of fining was put into place, where would the line be drawn? A set fine could not be created separately for just the “rich” and the “poor”, as many people have different annual incomes, so for one person in the “rich” band, it may constitute a lot of money, but not much for someone else with a much higher income. In this way, each person would have to pay a different fine based on their personal income, which many may feel unjust that they have to pay more for committing the exact same crime as someone else.

The fines are put into place in the first place because they are meant to represent the severity of the crime, not the income of the offender. Different people would be committing the same crime as others, so why should they be forced to pay more or less? With a set fine, they are still being forced to pay for their actions, no matter what the price. If people knew they would have to pay for the crime, this may be just as much a deterrent as the price that would be paid.

Also, if the price of parking fines was changed to accommodate income, would all fines and taxes not have to follow suit in order to make it fair? This would result in some people paying vast sums of money a year, whereas others would pay only a fraction. Through this, a barrier between high income and low income earner could be created, as many would find this unreasonable.

Therefore, should parking fines based on income be introduced in areas such as Woodford? My own view is that parking fines should not reflect income, as in the interest of equality for all, fines should reflect the severity of the offenders’ crime, and not their bank balance.
 
... and how exactly would that work?

The Scandinavian countries do this now for speeding and a number of other offenses. Ticket values have a set range based on income, and the exact number is set by interfacing with the tax authorities database on your reported income.


****

Edit to add, Ok, I'm getting caught up in this again............ none of this is on topic for the thread, we all diverge and wander on tangents from time to time, but this one surely needs to have run its course!
 
Last edited:
Edit to add, Ok, I'm getting caught up in this again............ none of this is on topic for the thread, we all diverge and wander on tangents from time to time, but this one surely needs to have run its course!
It sorta is IMO, as our other modes of transportation will likely be shared with cars in this new development unfortunately. So it's good to know what we can do so at least nobody dies or gets injured on their journeys to and through here. As long as we bring it back to the subject title...I'm not sure how this topic isn't relevant.
 
Dec 27
336BC118-8966-4183-ACB8-A3FEB640F393.jpeg


The shoreline looks nasty In this area.
28242408-E152-4E72-BD52-55FE6851221C.jpeg
 

Back
Top