News   Nov 12, 2024
 472     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 463     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 531     0 

Why does Toronto always dominate the best cities list???

Isn't that forbidden speech?

BTW Toronto doesn't do all that well on Monocle's city rankings.

Why should it be forbidden? Global warming itself is a theory at best, and a scam at worst. Everyone should have the right to question its validity.

Even if it were real, isn't it obvious it does a lot more good to Canada than bad? Look at 95% of Canada's land that is neither arable nor habitable. From a global perspective, there is also both pros and cons. Just because some ambitious politicians hired a group of biased scientists to prove it does not make it real or irrefutable.

Canada is stuck with being a small country largely due its climate, and many of its problems are due to it too. The fact that frigid places like Montreal can become a vibrant metropolis with 3-4 million people is already a miracle. Imagine what Toronto and Montreal can be if they had New York or London's weather.
 
Speaking of public transit, has anyone gone on any of Tokyo's extensive transit system? There are endless Toyko Metro lines all over the greater Tokyo area, not to mention about two dozen JR (Japan Rail) lines that are super-efficient and rarely late. It's amazing how they can co-ordinate hundreds of trains yet our TTC still struggles with 2 subway lines! And the Tokyo Metro and JR isn't even the extent of what they have. As mentioned earlier, it takes a unified vision to plan, strategize, and implement something with this level of success.

We actually have 3 subway lines. But the 5 station Sheppard stub can hardly be considered a subway line.
 
true. I always wonder why TTC ran into so many "signal problem" when it has two lines only. What will happen if we do have someday 5 or 6 lines? How did London, New York, Shanghai, and Tokyo etc manage those system 5 times the size of ours?

Also the priority light for LRT is such a joke. Yesterday I was taking 510, and from College to King St, the vehicle I took ran into every red light between that short distance. I mean, literally EVERYTHING SINGLE ONE.

TTC apparently needs to learn a lot to be an efficient and world class transit. Right now, let's just admit it is simply bad.

First of all the 510 is a streetcar line. There's a difference between streetcar and LRT. Anyways the 510 was originally planed to have priority signalling but it was never implemented. When the Sheppard, Finch and Eglinton LRTs are built they will have priority signalling and they'll be able to zoom past intersections without stopping
 
Why should it be forbidden? Global warming itself is a theory at best, and a scam at worst. Everyone should have the right to question its validity.
If anyone doesn't believe in global warming, I invite them to check out the July weather forecast from 20,000 years ago.
 
I don't disagree with you. But googling to find signal problems with the London Underground is not gonna make the TTC situation look any better. London subway has the excuse of being 150 years old. We don't.
Our problem seems to be too forgiving about the mistakes and always finding excuses for the apparent failure. Such self denial is not gonna help but only makes any progress even slower.

London's subway system is 150 years old. Their signal system is not. At some point signal systems get old and don't work as well. Replacing them before this happens is a waste of money. In case you are not aware, there is already an initiative underway to replace all signals on the Yonge line with a modern automatic operation capable system. The new subway cars are designed to be compatible with it.
 
We actually have 3 subway lines. But the 5 station Sheppard stub can hardly be considered a subway line.

it is more like a spur.
Many other major cities have those but never consider them as a separate subway line.
we have two lines, that's a fact.
 
Why should it be forbidden? Global warming itself is a theory at best, and a scam at worst. Everyone should have the right to question its validity.

Even if it were real, isn't it obvious it does a lot more good to Canada than bad? Look at 95% of Canada's land that is neither arable nor habitable. From a global perspective, there is also both pros and cons. Just because some ambitious politicians hired a group of biased scientists to prove it does not make it real or irrefutable.

Canada is stuck with being a small country largely due its climate, and many of its problems are due to it too. The fact that frigid places like Montreal can become a vibrant metropolis with 3-4 million people is already a miracle. Imagine what Toronto and Montreal can be if they had New York or London's weather.

Global warming is just a theory, but I have yet to see any credible evidence to disprove it. So as far as I'm concerned global warming is very real. But global warming is very good for Canada so I'm all for it. In 100 years the US of A will be a hot desert and 90% of Canada will be a wonderful place with mild temperatures.
 
If anyone doesn't believe in global warming, I invite them to check out the July weather forecast from 20,000 years ago.

yes, world temperature stats during the past 100 years means very little, and no conclusions should be drawn from it, when the earth has existed for i don't know how many millions years. It is like someone saw three days of rain in Vancouver and claims Vancouver is getting wetter and faces the thread of flooding.

The earth can well be going through a warm cycle, and human activities have nothing to do with it. Compared with the force of mother nature, what humans can do is pathetic and we still exaggerate our influence.

Let's not forget many places are a lot colder than normal. Check this winter weather in East Europe and we realize global warming is just a theory at best. Only those who can't think independent and are easy to be brainwashed will simply take what the media and government-paid “experts" constantly say as the ultimate and irrefutable truth.
 
Global warming is just a theory, but I have yet to see any credible evidence to disprove it. So as far as I'm concerned global warming is very real. But global warming is very good for Canada so I'm all for it. In 100 years the US of A will be a hot desert and 90% of Canada will be a wonderful place with mild temperatures.

evidence for global warming is sporadic and spurious. If the earth is so warm, why East Europe is experiencing the coldest winter ever that hundreds died of hypothermia?

The earth has a very long history and the temperature record we have is like 0.00001% of it. How can one be so convinced that it is a long term trend, instead of just a short term fluctuation? 50 years, is very short for the earth, and data based on that should be taken with caution.

If even it is warmer, how do we know it is because of human activities? Millions of factors way more greater than the cars we drive can contribute to it.

I am not saying it is wrong, but I don't buy it unless there is sufficient evidence. Clowns like Dalton McGuinty is using it as a political tool to get ahead in his career. It is easy for politicians to hire and pay "experts" to issue reports to support whatever they want the educated people to believe. I work for the government, and I know how it works. If your research evidence shows otherwise, it will simply be ignore. Only evidence supporting the already determined conclusion will be taken into account.
 
Global warming is an inaccurate term that was abandoned by climate scientists years ago. The term now used is global climate change. Some areas of the globe are getting colder while others are getting warmer.

yes, they did change the term when they realize the old term already fell apart.
"climate change", now it can never be wrong. Smart move!

Since some parts are getting warmer and some are getting colder, there are pros and cons, and it is far from clear which dominate. Why spend money fighting it??
 
evidence for global warming is sporadic and spurious. If the earth is so warm, why East Europe is experiencing the coldest winter ever that hundreds died of hypothermia?

The earth has a very long history and the temperature record we have is like 0.00001% of it. How can one be so convinced that it is a long term trend, instead of just a short term fluctuation? 50 years, is very short for the earth, and data based on that should be taken with caution.

If even it is warmer, how do we know it is because of human activities? Millions of factors way more greater than the cars we drive can contribute to it.

I am not saying it is wrong, but I don't buy it unless there is sufficient evidence. Clowns like Dalton McGuinty is using it as a political tool to get ahead in his career. It is easy for politicians to hire and pay "experts" to issue reports to support whatever they want the educated people to believe. I work for the government, and I know how it works. If your research evidence shows otherwise, it will simply be ignore. Only evidence supporting the already determined conclusion will be taken into account.

First of all, global warming doesn't exist. Its called global climate change. Yes, there's a difference.

Second of all, global warming has nothing to do with this thread. Create a global warming thread and I'll respond to your post there.
 
Somehow I knew from the title of this thread that it would become a debate over just how bad Toronto's transit is. However, let's take a moment to reflect on how our poor transportation infrastructure relates to the general livability of our city:

1. Unlike most other North American cities, we have a thriving city centre that is full of employment and amenities, and that attracts people from the surrounding region on a daily basis. Thus, there is a high volume of people traveling into Toronto everyday rather than through Toronto, around Toronto, or out of Toronto.

2. We have historically placed a higher priority on maintaining the livability of our city rather than demolishing neighbourhoods in favour of expressways.

3. The aging streetcar network that we held onto even after other cities had given them up for faster options has helped hold together the city, creating thriving commercial streets that form the ribs to Yonge street's spine.

In short, one of the major reasons why North American cities are often so UNLIVABLE is because of the ease of movement since the mid-20th century. The faster one travels from A to B, the less they need to be concerned about everything in between.

And sure it would be nice to have the extensive subway systems of London, NYC, Tokyo, or Hong Kong, but remember that none of these cities usually make it onto the livability lists. When we compare our transit system to other livable cities like Vancouver, San Francisco, or Sydney, we look pretty good.
 

Back
Top