Transit expansion in Toronto, but nothing for the downtown

[GraphicMatt]

This is emblematic of the lopsided thinking. Technically, yes, 99% of people probably can get places without using their car. Just because they can use public transit doesn't make it a good idea though. Its no secret that taking public transit from outside of downtown to most places outside of downtown is a harrowing affair compared to driving.

Sure, and that's my experience as well. I could theoretically use transit to get to my office in Burlington, but I drive because GO is fairly inconvenient when going outbound. I try to limit how often I use the car within the City itself, but I drive when transit doesn't offer an easy trip.

My point is simply this: No one is simply a 'motorist', full stop. People use various modes of transit to get where they're going, based on factors like convenience, cost and reliability. Again, there is no oppressed class of people in this city who are completely incapable of going ANYWHERE without their car.

It's simply ripping up existing infrastructure (Gardiner East) or changing rules (no right on red) simply to make it harder to drive downtown.

Not at all. Where do you get this? It's completely valid to believe these moves will make it detrimentally hard to drive downtown (and thus shouldn't be done) but they both clearly have real reasons for being.

Gardiner East: Waterfront planners believe the highway as it exists poses a barrier to development.

Right-turn-on-reds: This is a safety issue and it will only be happening at a few (9? I think?) intersections where there's lots of pedestrian traffic.

You can disagree with the moves, but don't misrepresent why they're on the table.

 

[Automation Gallery]

What's a motorist? Seriously. I have a car and I take transit and I walk places - what am I? Let's not pretend there's an oppressed minority of people in this city who are entirely incapable of getting places without bringing their car.

Everyone forgets the thousands and thousands of soccer moms and hockey dads, let alone all other people associated with all organized sports in this city, are they supposed to be rolling around town in public transit with kids and equipment trying to get to their practices, games and tournaments on time.........please.

 

[GraphicMatt]

They can still drive, but if it takes them 2-3 minutes longer in rush hour to get to where they're going on Jarvis street, that's a worthwhile trade-off for a more walkable street.

 

[Epi]

Everyone forgets the thousands and thousands of soccer moms and hockey dads, let alone all other people associated with all organized sports in this city, are they supposed to be rolling around town in public transit with kids and equipment trying to get to their practices, games and tournaments on time.........please.

I'd gather a large amount of people who spend their days posting on a message board about buildings probably don't have kids (or have families and thus need to live in a house)

 

[toraerach]

Everyone forgets the thousands and thousands of soccer moms and hockey dads, let alone all other people associated with all organized sports in this city, are they supposed to be rolling around town in public transit with kids and equipment trying to get to their practices, games and tournaments on time.........please.

Everyone seems to be forgetting a really easy way to reduce the amount of cars on streets downtown: carpooling. There is no reason why two kids, two parents, and equipment can't fit into one car (or, especially, SUV). There should be more incentives for carpooling, or more promotion of it as a way to save money on gas, parking, etc.

 

[W. K. Lis]

What are the boundaries of downtown? Is Spadina in downtown? Is St. Clair West downtown? Is Eglinton downtown?

I consider Eglinton and Yonge downtown in 2009. Back in 1954, when the Yonge HRT subway opened, Eglinton and Yonge was not built up as it is today, and I would not consider it downtown.

So transit is expanding in downtown, because downtown is also expanding. However, after saying all that, we need even more transit by building a downtown relief line, from Eglinton, from both the west and east sides.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Everyone seems to be forgetting a really easy way to reduce the amount of cars on streets downtown: carpooling. There is no reason why two kids, two parents, and equipment can't fit into one car (or, especially, SUV). There should be more incentives for carpooling, or more promotion of it as a way to save money on gas, parking, etc.

"Been there, done that", as a soccer coach, carting kids and parents all over the place. But believe it or not....(which i thought was ridiculous) i was told many times by the club and concerned other parents that if the owner of that vechicle crashes, and the passengers in the car get hurt, the driver can eventually get sued by the family of the victims. Other than the insurance companys coverage of the car and passengers in an accident, i personally dont know what the insurance laws are in carpooling, in the event of actually geting sued by the victims and families. "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

 

[kEiThZ]

You can disagree with the moves, but don't misrepresent why they're on the table.

I am not misrepresenting anything. This is the situation as I see it.

Gardiner East: Waterfront planners believe the highway as it exists poses a barrier to development.

It's not a barrier to development. That's a misrepresentation. The wall of condos that's there didn't have a problem popping up with the Gardiner in place. So how is the Gardiner a barrier to development? It's a barrier preventing the rest of the city from accessing the waterfront apparently.....though I don't buy that's its as much of a barrier as many make it out to be. There's certainly an anti-car element that's advocating it's take down. Now if they had planned on burying it and charging tolls to pay for the burial I'd have bought the argument that it's not an anti-car move. Simply tearing it down with no serious solution (widened lakeshore with lights is not going to be as good as the Gardiner...2 mins my ass) in place is pretty juvenile. That's the anti-car, anti-suburban attitude right there. Let's reduce our highway capacity so that we are for all intents and purposes thoroughly dependent on one and only one east-west thoroughfare. What happens the next time there's a propane explosion or protesters block that one artery?

Right-turn-on-reds: This is a safety issue and it will only be happening at a few (9? I think?) intersections where there's lots of pedestrian traffic.

On this I'll reserve judgement till I see the list of intersections. Other than a handful of corridors (Yonge, few streets in the financial district) I don't see what the big deal is. Most downtown streets are fairly safe to cross. Are pedestrians getting run over by those making right turns on a regular basis? If anything, I think drivers are far more cautious downtown where they know there are always pedestrians crossing.

I don't mind some of the changes. I like the Jarvis lane reduction. I support trading that centre lane for bike lanes. However, some of those other changes I am more suspicious of.

 

[kettal]

Everyone forgets the thousands and thousands of soccer moms and hockey dads, let alone all other people associated with all organized sports in this city, are they supposed to be rolling around town in public transit with kids and equipment trying to get to their practices, games and tournaments on time.........please.

Take a closer look at the cars in gridlock traffic. The great majority have one person inside, not a soccer team.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Click on this link for a video on "Suburbiatown".

Click on this link for a video on "Little Boxes of Levittown".

 

[Amphibius]

What are the boundaries of downtown? Is Spadina in downtown? Is St. Clair West downtown? Is Eglinton downtown?

I consider Eglinton and Yonge downtown in 2009. Back in 1954, when the Yonge HRT subway opened, Eglinton and Yonge was not built up as it is today, and I would not consider it downtown.

So transit is expanding in downtown, because downtown is also expanding. However, after saying all that, we need even more transit by building a downtown relief line, from Eglinton, from both the west and east sides.

The downtown core is unofficially bounded by Bathurst to the west, Parliament to the east, Bloor to the north and Lakeshore to the south. Midtown is the general area to the north stretching from Bloor to St. Clair. Yonge-Eglinton is its own UGC though we can define it as Uptown based on the Business Improvement Area of the same name which begins around here and stretches north up Yonge Street.

You're right about the DRL though. It should terminate at Eglinton on both sides eventially, and if ever fare boundaries are re-established by the TTC everything within the loop of DRL + Eglinton tunneled section could be considered Zone 1.

 

[GraphicMatt]

It's not a barrier to development. That's a misrepresentation. The wall of condos that's there didn't have a problem popping up with the Gardiner in place.

You're making a valid argument now, which is fine - I objected to your claim that the reason some want to tear down the east bit of the Gardiner was purely to somehow 'punish' people who drive. That's not the case.

So how is the Gardiner a barrier to development? It's a barrier preventing the rest of the city from accessing the waterfront apparently.....though I don't buy that's its as much of a barrier as many make it out to be.

I've been round and round on this one a lot, but quickly: almost all of the waterfront development we've seen thus far has been residential. Downtown residents still rarely go down to the lake. There's clearly some kind of barrier there, whether psychological or physical. I think it's the highway. Others think it's the rail berm. Some think it's the 'wall of condos' themselves, which is kind of stupid, but whatever.

The point is this: I don't think you can seriously talk about developing Toronto's waterfront without talking about the highway.

There's certainly an anti-car element that's advocating it's take down.

With this section of the Gardiner, it might not be anti-car so much as it is pro-development.

Now if they had planned on burying it and charging tolls to pay for the burial I'd have bought the argument that it's not an anti-car move. Simply tearing it down with no serious solution (widened lakeshore with lights is not going to be as good as the Gardiner...2 mins my ass) in place is pretty juvenile.

It's not the whole Gardiner. It's the mostly lightly used section. There are numerous options on the table for how a new connection might work. I submit that they're worth looking into. Traffic studies tend to be accurate, even if they're frequently dismissed by critics.

On this I'll reserve judgement till I see the list of intersections. Other than a handful of corridors (Yonge, few streets in the financial district) I don't see what the big deal is. Most downtown streets are fairly safe to cross. Are pedestrians getting run over by those making right turns on a regular basis? If anything, I think drivers are far more cautious downtown where they know there are always pedestrians crossing.

Glad you're reserving judgment! I am too. Anecdotally, I've had a couple of close-calls with cars while crossing at major intersections. Most major intersections downtown are so busy with pedestrians that right turns on red are almost impossible to make, but some drivers will still try to squeak through. Makes for dangerous situations.

 

[Translude15]

GraphicMatt and kEiThZ, you both make very good arguments on the whole Gardiner-Lakefront development issue.

I personally believe the whole highway-lakefront tandem can co-exist, however the current layout must be altered significantly.

Chicago's Lakeshore contains a fairly large expressway (6-8 lanes) running right through it. Chicago's situation works however, because the expressway has been surrounded by beautifully landscaped parks and other people friendly perks. This has been done to a much higher degree than is the case with our waterfront.

I really don't see the Gardiner as the sole cause of Toronto's lakefront dilemma. There just simply isn't much there for people to flock to. There needs to be an influx of green spaces, and the industrial rust belt known as the Don Lands, as well as the area just east of Yonge needs to be refurbished ASAP. The Gardiner itself can also be improved, by perhaps lowering it in a similar fashion to the proposed 401 extension in Windsor. I will agree that in its elevated form, it is quite the eyesore.

 

[kettal]

The real barrier is the Lakeshore Blvd underneath Gardiner. If they can make that into something friendly to pedestrian then we're better off.

 

[Swamp Thing]

Take a closer look at the cars in gridlock traffic. The great majority have one person inside, not a soccer team.

Take a longer look at those cars with one person inside.

While you weren't looking, he majority of them began their daily journey with several passengers.

But after Mom drops off the husband at the train/subway/bus stop, and drops off their 2.3 kids at one or more schools, daycare or the babysitter, and drops off grandma at the senior centre, then she gets to complete her journey creeping along in bumper-to-bumper traffic, burning scarce fuel and emitting needless CO2, while the occasional vacationer zips past in an otherwise under-utilized "carpool" lane.

If you and all your neighbours work at the same plant, fine. But carpooling is hardly a practical solution outside of the company-built subdivisions of the '50s and '60s.