scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
According to the article, they tie together the only parts of the city that matter.
|
|
|
According to the article, they tie together the only parts of the city that matter.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Until the 1960's, streetcars were the backbone of Toronto. Most riders used streetcars to get around. The outer areas were farmland.
The subways replaced the streetcars as the main transportation mode in the inner core, but were still rail. As the city grew into former farmland, it was the buses that grew into those outer areas.
Now the LRV, or rail, will be replacing the buses to form a new backbone in the outer areas, while the subway remains as the backbone for the inner areas.
In all cases, it is rail (in whatever form) remains the backbone for Toronto transit.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Shawn Micallef, the author of that article, states that he hadn't taken the TTC (for a non-airport trip) in five months. After waiting for the 506, he stated:
"took ttc first non airport trip in 5 mons and regrets it deeply. Shld have got wet riding bike"
Shawn is great at what he does and we need more people like him, working to create a Toronto mythos. But romanticism is no basis for sound transportation policy. I think he understands this... but does David Miller?
"took ttc first non airport trip in 5 mons and regrets it deeply. Shld have got wet riding bike"
Shawn is great at what he does and we need more people like him, working to create a Toronto mythos. But romanticism is no basis for sound transportation policy. I think he understands this... but does David Miller?
Nicely put CDL.
Whoaccio; Doady: must every article about the streetcar be cold/fact laden/artless? Please.
42
Whoaccio; Doady: must every article about the streetcar be cold/fact laden/artless? Please.
42
Whoaccio
Senior Member
In short, yes. Especially when billions of dollars are on the line. I would be more forgiving if people didn't continually use this kind of Romanticism to justify positions that should, at the end of the day, be mainly economical/practical/technical in nature.
adma
Superstar
Given the kind of heritage philistine you are in other regards, I'd advise you to watch your anti-Romanticism...
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Right, middle class people can write poems about the streetcars and call it good transit policy. All praise the mythical 501 Queen, bringer of Jane Jacobs and bohemian urbanism! Hail!
nfitz
Superstar
It's a bit late to be bringing Jane Jacobs and Bohemian urbanism.
Perhaps that's why it's mythical - 'cause it's always late.
adma
Superstar
But it's not so great when advocates of "good transit policy" sound a little bit along the woodenheaded reactive lines of advocates of "good road policy" (cf. Alcock, James)
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
So, uh, when did the author of this piece try to pass off his observations as the sole basis for transit policy?
As for you, dear Whoaccio, the Toronto Sun letters to the editor page is clamouring for your patronage.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
When did I say that was the "sole basis"? I just pointed out what everyone already knows, the streetcars have been romanticized and aggrandized to a point where nobody is winning. (That is, except for the wonderful writers at Spacing)
Do you honestly think anybody would read this if you replaced "streetcar" with "bus"?
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
Sure, if it was done well. I think a nostalgia piece for the old GM fishbowls, suddenly rarified, would strike a few chords. Besides - as you rightly point out - streetcar nostalgia has kind of been done already. So a bit of bus nostalgia would be refreshing.
My point is, I don't think this is streetcar propoganda, or anything other than what it is - Shawn's trademark rumination on the local imagination and the things that occupy it. To get too worked up about it is to make a straw man of it.
doady
Senior Member
IMO, romanticism for streetcars is the reason they have not been improved at all for so long, and why ridership has fallen. I'm glad there is less romanticism for buses otherwise the bus system would be stuck in the past too. After all, no new fishbowls have been produced in the long time.
I guess it is not possible to expect a pro-streetcar, anti-bus article to have facts.
I am reminded of a recent post on UT:
Now that's art, bashing both buses and subways at the same time.
I guess it is not possible to expect a pro-streetcar, anti-bus article to have facts.
I am reminded of a recent post on UT:
Now that's art, bashing both buses and subways at the same time.
BobBob
Senior Member
While of course it shouldn't be the only consideration, I believe there is merit to also considering the quality of experience in the different modes of transit.
It's true that riding a streetcar is a more elegant and civilized experience than being on a bus. There's no swaying or bumping, there is no loud engine noise, there is no (local) exhaust, etc. If efficiency was comparable between buses and streetcars, I do think it would be worth paying more for streetcars.
So, while I agree that we need to keep our heads cool and not overly romanticize the streetcar system, we should also be careful not to forget that there actually *are* important factors beyond mere numbers, which *will* impact ridership, quality of life, etc, and, yes, the city's brand.
It's true that riding a streetcar is a more elegant and civilized experience than being on a bus. There's no swaying or bumping, there is no loud engine noise, there is no (local) exhaust, etc. If efficiency was comparable between buses and streetcars, I do think it would be worth paying more for streetcars.
So, while I agree that we need to keep our heads cool and not overly romanticize the streetcar system, we should also be careful not to forget that there actually *are* important factors beyond mere numbers, which *will* impact ridership, quality of life, etc, and, yes, the city's brand.
adma
Superstar
And it isn't like the Spacing crew wouldn't romanticize GMC Fishbowls, either...