Transit City Plan

[Second_in_pie]

People left to go to the suburbs so that the city would rot. We need to stop giving them handouts by enhancing their life in the suburbs. They should be responsible for the consequences of choosing to live so far away, and one way to do that is to not enhance Go.

Did they purposefully do that? No. The government said, "hey, let's destroy human life as we know it and make sure people have to start living in these vacuum-sealed lives far away from the big bad city. It's in no way the fault of these people that they chose to live there (and now it's actually very, very hard to plausibly live in high density close to the city.) Yet you're saying that we should punish them because they chose the only option they had open to them when they came to this city.

Well there are two possibilities. To not enhance service to their exurbs. Or to eliminate the service. Both are better than to enhance service to them. They should pay for their decision to live so far from the central business district. Hm, raising the fee for using the Go train might just do the trick.

And they'll pay for that by driving downtown instead of taking the train.

In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s MT helped in coordinating development with rapid transit. This has resulted in Toronto being one of the most livable cities in north america. It was coordinated land use planning. MT had the authority to veto certain construction. By the 1980s population was growing outside of where MT had authority. The unplanned suburbs outside of what is today toronto capitalized by taking industry and people out of the city. Cheaper taxes and cheaper homes, such standard stuff that killed american cities.

Then I guess that'd be the reason why basically all of the suburbs built in Toronto were built during that time. Yeah, it's been great. And then at the end of that, the outer suburbs started capitalizing on sprawl? That's just because Toronto ran outta room to do it themselves.

 

[Ervin]

Your conclusion is retarded. GO is bad because it helps aid the suburbs. Go did not create the suburbs, nor will the suburbs disappear if Go disappears.

Okay I see the problem we're having here. Laz is either a brain damaged child or trolling.

The only conclusion I made in my post is that cars encourage the expansion of suburbs, and cars are worse for the environment than trains, and according to him that's retarded.

Stop feeding the troll people.

 

[doady]

Okay I see the problem we're having here. Laz is either a brain damaged child or trolling.

The only conclusion I made in my post is that cars encourage the expansion of suburbs, and cars are worse for the environment than trains, and according to him that's retarded.

Stop feeding the troll people.

Your problem is that you assume that GO Transit discourages the use of cars.

 

[LAz]

Did they purposefully do that? No. The government said, "hey, let's destroy human life as we know it and make sure people have to start living in these vacuum-sealed lives far away from the big bad city. It's in no way the fault of these people that they chose to live there (and now it's actually very, very hard to plausibly live in high density close to the city.) Yet you're saying that we should punish them because they chose the only option they had open to them when they came to this city.

I reject your claim that those were their only options. The city was not big-bad-rotten as was in the US. If anything, Toronto was more vibrant than any place in north america. Our city had life, thanks to coordinated development.

Suburbs like richmond hill and vaughan grew primarily since the 1980s, increasing their population by several fold. R.H. went from 33 k in 1981 to 80 k in 1991, to an even further 132 k in 2001. By now it's probably around 200 k if not more. Similar stuff for vaughan.

I do not see what is very hard about living in the city. It's not like we're dealing with the victorian era ghetto city. Or a city of the permanent underclass like st. louis or chicago. I am not necessarily against shipping those people into new towns (much further out of the city itself), or to create street-car /subway suburbs. My problem is unplanned growth in the "automobile suburb". That is the major problem, when growth is not integrated with transportation. For that the suburbs deserve to be punished.

And then at the end of that, the outer suburbs started capitalizing on sprawl? That's just because Toronto ran outta room to do it themselves.

What is not clear about the suburbs luring away people and business thanks to lower taxes and cheaper homes? Coordinated development along transit lines halted once one went outside of metropolitan canada, and what we got instead was unplanned development, aka disaster - but great for short term profits.

And they'll pay for that by driving downtown instead of taking the train.

Well if we stop enhancing their service they will still continue to take it, and only realize the inconveniences of living so far away.
But I see nothing wrong with making them pay. Especially if the price of gas starts to increase. Lets bankrupt those mofos who financed the construction of the cul-de-sac monstrosoties of the suburbs.

This, this and this is absolutely the devil in terms of development
- http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2079215/2112767/2129635/051107_arch_suburbSprawl_ex.jpg
- http://samrainer.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/suburban-usa.jpg
- http://environmentalgeography.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/sprawl_houston_suburb_2006_large.jpg

Your problem is that you assume that GO Transit discourages the use of cars.

The poor guy is probably confusing auto suburb with streetcar/rail suburb.

Maybe these monstrosities would not be so bad if they were more compact, planned, so that one does not need to depend solely on the car to live over there. But hence the unplanned sprawl problem, the thing that must be condemned.






And along with that we must condemn those "libertarians" whose fundamental principle is no planning.

Hence we gotta attack the new conservatives that was to reduce government as much as possible, to take out regulations for the private business, and whatnot... what's quite scary is that their movement is gaining rapid support in alberta with their wild rose party... they've been taking many votes away from PC. But this is what can happen when systematic brainwashing is applied to the masses. That hegemony, where the peon class is brainwashed to believe that the interests of the richest of the rich are also their own interests.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I do not see what is very hard about living in the city. It's not like we're dealing with the victorian era ghetto city. Or a city of the permanent underclass like st. louis or chicago. I am not necessarily against shipping those people into new towns (much further out of the city itself), or to create street-car /subway suburbs. My problem is unplanned growth in the "automobile suburb". That is the major problem, when growth is not integrated with transportation. For that the suburbs deserve to be punished.

It's hard because it costs insane amounts of money to live in the inner city. You may not realize this, but it doesn't really work to have families living in $600,000 2 bedroom condo units that expect $5000 a year in maintenance fees. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for high density living. In fact, I think that the suburban model of living is really stupid and does need to just disappear, and that everyone's lives would be enriched if there was a proper model in which everyone could enjoy high living in high density. But that's not how the market's working now. A regular family just can't afford a reasonably sized (3 bedroom) unit in Toronto. So unless they should pay because they don't make over 80k a year, your logic is just so wrong.

 

[LAz]

You have a point about that, but that is why we need to embrace affordable housing, not just the private sector housing. But it is difficult - correct me if I am wrong, but the liberals and conservatives do not dare these things no more?



The other problem here is the whole profit oriented way of development. Cities in North America seem to care more about the corporate profits than the human being. It's a shame really.






But your point is there. Unfortunately there are multiple problems/issues at hand here.

 

[Justin10000]

The other problem here is the whole profit oriented way of development. Cities in North America seem to care more about the corporate profits than the human being. It's a shame really.

I got to agree with this comment. Good example, the poorly planned, and zoned high density development going up in the Heart Lake area in Brampton. Going to totally ruin the area.

 

[LAz]

Another example is that duany's new urbanism b.s. ... that stuff does not reduce congestion and is advocated so much by the guy so that his own profits would be promoted. Same for that other guy - richard florida or what was his name in toronto? It just makes me so sad that profits are more important than sustainable development. I don't see anything changing in the near future, so this is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[Rainforest]

Well if we stop enhancing their service they will still continue to take it, and only realize the inconveniences of living so far away. But I see nothing wrong with making them pay. Especially if the price of gas starts to increase. Lets bankrupt those mofos who financed the construction of the cul-de-sac monstrosoties of the suburbs.

OK, you expect some of them move back into the inner city, or discorage new house starts in suburbs.

But are you sure that jobs will not take flight into suburbs if the downtown locations become too hard to reach?

Imagine that GO / public transit is inadequate, and roads too jammed to drive in. Employees will first look for jobs outside the city core, and only those who cannot get such jobs, will accept jobs in the core. Employers will notice that when the office is in the core, they have to offer higher pay or settle for less productive employees ... and consider moving out.

There is a considerable volume of reverse commuters already. "Discoraging" suburbs by refusing to provide adequate transit will only enhance that trend, and lead to even greater dependency on cars.

 

[rbt]

But are you sure that jobs will not take flight into suburbs if the downtown locations become too hard to reach?

It will always be easier to reach downtown than to cut across it (Whitby to Brampton for example). The actual impact will be that the company or growth will occur in another nearby city with similar servies (Chicago?)

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Stupid computers, I had made a post re Laz's argument but somehow lost it... Silly me.

Basically if the rails were highways and the stations interchanges, the majority of people here would be complaining about the highway that is contributing to sprawl. The fact is that GO brings the downtown core closer to many of the regions ex-urbs and allows people to live in these areas while still working downtown. Lack of development planning has created low density sprawl around the stations (much like the sprawl that surrounds highways) instead of compact somewhat dense areas. That is why I agree with Laz that the GO network contributes to sprawl, not that I think it should be dismantled.

 

[LAz]

But are you sure that jobs will not take flight into suburbs if the downtown locations become too hard to reach?

If we do no enhance the service from the suburbs, then we would not be putting them in a worse position, would we?

Jobs have already gone to the suburbs, because of lower taxes.

Can this get worse... I don't know. I don't think that the downtown locations are that hard to reach, are they? If anything, moving more people to the suburbs would create this on their streets - http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060801/060801_trafficJams_hmed_1p.hmedium.jpg - thus making their streets enjoyably and moving business back to the city?
But all things aside, I just don't see a rush of businesses from the CBD going to say vughan or somewhere. There are certain established patterns. Suburbs are naturally trying to change this, to take as much as they can from the city itself... things changed somewhat... how far will they continue? I hope that higher petrol prices are putting a stop to this, but higher prices alone won't do the job. There has to be more.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Umm no Laz, Go trains are really keeping Downtown up. Go trains have the capacity to funnel everyone in the GTA downtown. You do realize that's a point in favour of at least business downtown, right? And it's not like those families would be able to live downtown anyways, let alone all several hundred thousand of them that commute downtown by Go.

 

[Mapleson]

I see a lot of old criticisms here, but has anyone actually considered where things have been going recently?

In 1998, we amalgamated Toronto and the boroughs, so instead of having East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, and York sprall independently, they are held to the same rules as Toronto proper. Ontario came out with "Places to Grow" in 2006 that set rural and urban job and housing density targets. "Mobility Hubs" are the new catch term for integrating local transit services and regional commuter services, Mississauga Transit and Brampton Transit are in the lead with these and integrating the future Hurontario/Main LRT. Similar things going on in the West End.

People tend to forget that Toronto and Mississauga are the 1st and 6th biggest cities in Canada. Don't they deserve the ability to move around as much as between Calgary and Edmonton? Lots of random bits here, but my point is that we should be working to undo the neglect in the system. Neglecting the system further isn't going to achieve gains for anyone.

 

[ssiguy2]

This whole idea of living close to the inner city shoots the idea of living close to where you work all to hell. I don't suppose it's occurred to suburbanite living that maybe it's a shorter commute or closer to where their kids go to school or university/college. GO is an essential part of the transit system and commuting options.
As far as this idea that people in the more suburban areas of the City of Toronto being able to take GO so they don't need mass transit I find that offensive. Yes you serve the most needed areas first but they should be built out to serve those areas as well. They pay their taxes like everyone else in the city so they should get good transit service as well. Yes they will be more expensive to serve on a per-capita basis than inner city folk but at the same time they do not enjoy the cultural {and city subsidized} events and civic entertainment options.