[CDN] Canadian Highways

[Froster]

Originally posted by hylaride
Avenues and boulevards are very different than freeways. Freeways promote no localism. The 'highways' of paris do not compare to the 401 or highways through other North American cities. Boulevards in paris have large sidewalks and do not separate large sections of the city with several lanes of high speed (+100km/hr) traffic.

I know that there is a difference between a Parisian boulevard and a 400-series highway, but I think that there is a parrallel in terms of the process to build them. Obviously the technology and time period separate them, but the levelling of large sections of paris is much the same as the process of acquiring and clearing land for new highways, which a city like Toronto desperately needs. My point was just that Paris' transportation system is the result of the demolition of old areas and building a new system on a blank slate, so its not like Paris is a city that survives completely without highways, its just that their highways were built prior to the development of the modern freeway.

Anyway, I think that the lack of highway construction has a lot to do with the wide swaths of uninterrupted houses because major industries and corporate activites will naturally choose to locate near to major transportation routes, and public complaints about the construction of new roads and highways impedes future development in these areas. In a city like Mississauga, a large number of higways have created an environment that is attracting a great deal of commerce to a suburban municipality, while Brampton, with access really only to the 407 and 410, does not have that widespread commerce through the city and what it does have clusters near these routes. There are lots of jobs throughout the city, but you can't build a local economy on back-offices and retailing alone, so the city survives on the development charges from subdivision construction instead.

If these highways need to be buried when going through dense, urban areas, fanstastic, but ultimately, they should be built, but there are far too many people with a NIMBY attitude who oppose anything but new public transit, which wont address the problem. Public transit has its place, but it needs to be coupled with an adequate highway system, and needs to be a decentralized system like the SF Bay area.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Froster

I know that there is a difference between a Parisian boulevard and a 400-series highway, but I think that there is a parrallel in terms of the process to build them. Obviously the technology and time period separate them, but the levelling of large sections of paris is much the same as the process of acquiring and clearing land for new highways, which a city like Toronto desperately needs. My point was just that Paris' transportation system is the result of the demolition of old areas and building a new system on a blank slate, so its not like Paris is a city that survives completely without highways, its just that their highways were built prior to the development of the modern freeway.

Paris actually got its wide boulevards after a great fire. Its not so much that somebody went out and willfilly destroyed the city, rather it burned down. I do beleive however, that Paris is an excellent example of what a city should be. Inho Paris is nearly perfectly multi-modal, it has wide boulevards, two freeway ring roads, and an excellent mass transit network.

Though, it was after a major fire that Paris rebuilt its network, it was built by viosonaries, who drempt of wide boulevards, that supported both driving and transit. Compare Paris, to London (which also burned down several times) but didn't have the same visionaries, and then look at overall city congestion. I think its safe to say that Paris is the clear winner of that comparison

Toronto needs more of both modes of transportation to effectively reduce congestion. Until then, both drivers, and transit users, will have to endure our long, congested rides to work.

Cheers,
Scott Steeves

[Froster]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Paris actually got its wide boulevards after a great fire. Its not so much that somebody went out and willfilly destroyed the city, rather it burned down. I do beleive however, that Paris is an excellent example of what a city should be. Inho Paris is nearly perfectly multi-modal, it has wide boulevards, two freeway ring roads, and an excellent mass transit network.

Ummm... if the 60% of Paris that was redeveloped by Haussmann and his policies was the result of fire damage, that's news to me. I am aware that a great deal of Paris was damaged in the revolution, but there is a large gap between the revolution and the Haussmannization of Paris. He was in fact viewed by many as the willfull destroyer of Old Paris, and it took a generation or two for his ideas to be appreciated by the populus (he was fired afterall by Napoleon III to improve his public approval).

Regardless of this talk about Paris, my main point is that no city is static. Every facet of the city is constantly changing, and Toronto planning doesnt reflect this. The great, livable cities of the world thrive because of their neighbourhoods and not because of an over-emphasis on the centre city. Currently, the fight to protect and maintain the core of Toronto is overshadowing the serious work needed to make the suburbs more livable, and I think its costing the city as a whole. More people leave the city to go to work than enter it, and our transportation systems do not adequately reflect this at all. I think at some point, people dont know what they want, until the right way is shown to them (like the people of Paris eventually agreeing with Haussmannization). (Note: This is not an endorsement of central planning or anything, just that sometimes the NIMBY attitude prevents worthwhile projects from happening)

[hylaride]

Originally Posted by Froster

Ummm... if the 60% of Paris that was redeveloped by Haussmann and his policies was the result of fire damage, that's news to me. I am aware that a great deal of Paris was damaged in the revolution, but there is a large gap between the revolution and the Haussmannization of Paris. He was in fact viewed by many as the willfull destroyer of Old Paris, and it took a generation or two for his ideas to be appreciated by the populus (he was fired afterall by Napoleon III to improve his public approval).

Regardless of this talk about Paris, my main point is that no city is static. Every facet of the city is constantly changing, and Toronto planning doesnt reflect this. The great, livable cities of the world thrive because of their neighbourhoods and not because of an over-emphasis on the centre city. Currently, the fight to protect and maintain the core of Toronto is overshadowing the serious work needed to make the suburbs more livable, and I think its costing the city as a whole. More people leave the city to go to work than enter it, and our transportation systems do not adequately reflect this at all. I think at some point, people dont know what they want, until the right way is shown to them (like the people of Paris eventually agreeing with Haussmannization). (Note: This is not an endorsement of central planning or anything, just that sometimes the NIMBY attitude prevents worthwhile projects from happening)

I couldn't agree more with some of your points on many NIMBY efforts. Recently, NIMBY have stubbed condo development on Sheppard Ave east, where the new subway line was built recently. By fighting increased density, they're fighting better transit sustainability. Also, the Eiffel Tower was considered a blight when it was first built. However I disagree with your implication that Toronto mush change to make the suburbs more livable. First, why should the city be forced to change at the whims of people who don't live there?While some effects of urban "renewal" have changed the landscape, say of Paris, for the better, you cannot argue that most of the current north american cities have benefited from highways going through them. Boston and Detriot have been mentioned. What these will encourage is simply more sprawling. Many Torontonians feel that the Gardiner is more of a hinderance to the city.

My personal distain for highways within urban centres comes from the fact that they bring destruction for their contruction, and little benefit for the areas that they plow through. They separate the drivers from the streets. Wheras on city streets roads provide direct access to stores and such, a freeway rarely encourages growth for anything save warehousing, manufacturing and other industries directly related to shipping.

I also don't believe what you say about more people leaving the city to work than entering it. From the direction of traffic on every road I see, and the direction packed go trains and subways go, this goes against everything I see first hand. Please cite some refernece on that one.

[dtx03]

Nice Pics…

A few years back I remember CFTO (local TV Station) did an investigation about Toronto’s Traffic Chaos. They came up with a report of proposed highways in the 50’s that were to be built in the 60’s. This is what I can remember, some being obvious:

1.The Scarborough Expressway.. the extension of The Gardiner to Port Union in Scarborough running along the lakeshore.

2.Markham Expressway running N/S and then along the hydro corridor, then E/W between Eglinton and St. Clair to the Allen

3.The Allen extended to the Gardiner , creating the Spadina Expressway

4.An extension from then the proposed 409 that would connect to the Allen and then connect to the Markham expressway.

5.McNichol in Scarbrough/NorthYork was supposed to be a proposed expressway.


Traffic would be a lil less chaotic if we had some of these proposed highways and byways. But then it definitely would of taken out some neighborhoods we're already used to.

[Froster]

hylaride, I'll get a source for the transit data as soon as I can. I know it was used by a Professor of mine, and I'll just ask for the source the next time I see him.

Originally Posted by hylaride:
However I disagree with your implication that Toronto mush change to make the suburbs more livable. First, why should the city be forced to change at the whims of people who don't live there?

The city needs to improve the suburbs because they are legitimately part of the city. The attitude that the core comes before all else is flawed in my opinion. Firstly, the vast majority of people wish to live in a single family, detached home and this necessitates the development of suburban areas. The desire by some to force these people into downtown condominiums is completely infeasible if that is not what the market wants (and besides, who are they "saving" the city for, if the majority of citizens dont want to live downtown?). As for why should the city be forced to change, its because those people living in the suburbs are still part of the city. I dont see any reason why the people of the suburbs are any less important to the well being of the city than any other area/group.

Originally Posted by hylaride:
While some effects of urban "renewal" have changed the landscape, say of Paris, for the better, you cannot argue that most of the current north american cities have benefited from highways going through them. Boston and Detriot have been mentioned. What these will encourage is simply more sprawling. Many Torontonians feel that the Gardiner is more of a hinderance to the city.

I agree that the gardiner is ugly, and so was the elevated highway in Boston, but I would rather see a Toronto with a buried gardiner than a Toronto with no Gardiner at all (this is what the end of the QEW looked like before the Gardiner, imagine how it would be now!). I agree that Detroit's downtown is a disaster, but I would credit that more to the social problems of Detroit in the 50s and 60s when the downtown went downhill rather than a highway. I'm reallly not familiar enough with Boston to comment on why, but if the highways were that much of a problem, why would they invest so much into rebuilding them below ground in the "Big Dig"?

Besides that, I dont think highways promote sprawl. Actually, I'm not even sure what constitutes sprawl (really, think about it and come up with a concrete definition...). The city will definately spread along transportation routes, but if there is no market to support new construction it will not be built, and in this case, what's the difference between sprawl and growth? If the city is growing physically, then it is likely also growing in terms of population (Developers arent stupid- they wont build if nobody wants to live there). Is the Toronto of 1930 the result of the sprawl around toronto of 1900, or has the city just grown? In terms of contrasting sprawl to vertical growth of the city (though vertical growth does appeal to the engineer in me), what city on earth grew up without an external force forcing that to happen? A city like Toronto, or Chicago grew vertically because of the locational constraints of the financial sector, but beyond that, their growth spread outwards.

Originally Posted by dtx03:
Traffic would be a lil less chaotic if we had some of these proposed highways and byways. But then it definitely would of taken out some neighborhoods we're already used to.

Amen. I work for the City of Toronto in the summer, and I remember while spending time at the Archives at the end of Spadina requesting some old Etobicoke bylaws that we needed at the office, and reading the report on the plans for the Metro highway system as proposed in the 60s while the document were being pulled for me. I was amazed at what was planned and at how far they got. Most of these roads would be a huge asset to the city if constructed. The only one that I wouldnt want to see built would be Spadina (which I think I would probably have been sitting in the median of when I was reading these plans had it been built ) because the cost estimates were spiralling out of control due to the need to tunnel under Casa Loma. If the 400-extention to the Gardiner was built, I think that would probably have been an adequate alternative.

For everyone who is interested, there is a fantastic site called Missing Links that cronicles the plans for the Toronto expressways.

[KGB]

"The city needs to improve the suburbs because they are legitimately part of the city. The attitude that the core comes before all else is flawed in my opinion."


Not sure what you are refering to here...is it a 416 (city proper) vs 905 thing?

If so, the 905 really isn't a "legitimate" part of the city, as they are separate municipal entities, with their own vision and infastructure. Basically, Toronto is what it is because of this...it's concern is for itself...Mississauga's concern is for itself, etc. Not to say a GTA region-wide body cannot look at where the region can get together for the good of the region as a whole.

Toronto, as a city, has a vested interest in having it's downtown core keep it's dominence...highly concentrated, mixed-use downtown's offer something decentralized cities cannot...the critical mass of a downtown is greater than the sum of the total of a decentralized city. This extends to the suburbs as well.







"Firstly, the vast majority of people wish to live in a single family, detached home and this necessitates the development of suburban areas."


Well, in Toronto the numbers would say otherwise. In the suburbs, the numbers indicate this is also not the trend. Besides, many people might like the idea of a single, detached home, but have been weighing the disadvantages of this...especially in the suburbs, where infastructure availability decreases and increased costs make this less appealing in the long run.







"The desire by some to force these people into downtown condominiums is completely infeasible if that is not what the market wants"


Who's "forcing" anybody? It's a market-driven industry. And again, the numbers speak for themselves.







"I dont see any reason why the people of the suburbs are any less important to the well being of the city than any other area/group."


Wrong way to look at it....the "people of the suburbs" are simply not within the jurisdiction of the city, and therefore are of no concern technically. It's Toronto's job to look after Toronto and Mississauga's job to look after Mississauga. It's the province's job to make sure the intersction within and between cities work smoothly....remember, municipal governments are just arm's length provincial employees.






"I would rather see a Toronto with a buried gardiner than a Toronto with no Gardiner at all "


I agree...the gardiner is a critical part of the ring-system of highways surrounding the core area of Toronto. Luckily, they were designed to have little impact on the built form at the time, while allowing access of people and goods to travel in and out of core without the deadly pin-wheel highways which have forever destroyed the downtowns of so many US cities. Now that the waterfront area has been changed from industrial to mixed-use, the Gardiner is now in the way...it should be buried from the Don Valley to the Humber. This is of course fiscally a pipe-dream, but that would be better than illiminating it, which would screw the entire ring system....which would not be good at all.








"Besides that, I dont think highways promote sprawl. Actually, I'm not even sure what constitutes sprawl"


Of course highways promote sprawl...how else are people living in "sprawl" supposed to get to and from their "sprawl" locations? Local roads and transit are simply not an option (or walking/biking). And that is what sprawl is...unsustainable growth. Technically, Mississauga is no longer sprawl...it's just building on what was once sprawl.







"Is the Toronto of 1930 the result of the sprawl around toronto of 1900, or has the city just grown? "


The old city of Toronto did indeed grow by either annexing surrounding towns and villages (and a lot of them) and simple speculative building...but none of it would be sprawl by today's definition, as it was all sustained growth.


The whole idea of building more highways into Toronto will not help matters at all, as growth will always be ahead of highway capacity...peak period traffic would not be perfectly met by any amount of highways. The main problem of course, is the impact of these highways...both on the existing built form and on the local road system.....I mean, the highways are not the destination are they? Once they get off these many highways you want to construct, they will then be on the local road system, which is definetely not built to handle it, and will decrease the quality of life in the neighbourhoods they are in.

Ever seen the traffic woes in European cities? Even the much higher fuel costs, insurance, etc still makes it a nightmare.

Traffic problems are what deter people from using them...build more that fixes the problem, and it will just fill up again, because it will draw those detered in the first place. The best way to decrease traffic, is to create a situation that allows them to perform their function as designed...the movement of necessary goods and people in and around the core.






KGB

[Froster]

Originally posted by KGB:
If so, the 905 really isn't a "legitimate" part of the city, as they are separate municipal entities, with their own vision and infastructure.

Yup seperate entities... just like say Leaside, or Swansea, or New Toronto, or North York, etc. What's the difference between the mechanics by which a suburban area in North York (in Toronto/416) and a suburban area in, say, Mississauga (not Toronto/in 905)? They will require similar municipal services, similar transportation, have similar demographics, etc. And if Toronto's past is any indication, they may be part of the same city in the long run anyway . As for the critical mass of the downtown, that critical mass only exists in certain, highly locationally dependant activities such as high finance, law firms, government, etc. Other than these areas, most companies can (and do) locate freely throughout the city, and in terms of tax base and employment, the effect is neutral as far at the city is concerned, and it is far more beneficial to have areas of significant employment throughtout the city so that people travel less which benefits pollution, infrastructure and quality of life.

Originally posted by KGB:
Well, in Toronto the numbers would say otherwise. In the suburbs, the numbers indicate this is also not the trend. Besides, many people might like the idea of a single, detached home, but have been weighing the disadvantages of this...especially in the suburbs, where infastructure availability decreases and increased costs make this less appealing in the long run.

CMHC housing starts statistics would disagree in terms of units contstructed, and market research shows that upwards of 80% of people wish to live in an SFD. In terms of forcing people, yes its market-driven, and yes, many people will choose to live downtown, but if the transit system favors downtown, and the city will more readily approve construction of condominiums in many areas, then there are certainly forces compelling people to live in the core.

Originally posted by KGB:
Wrong way to look at it....the "people of the suburbs" are simply not within the jurisdiction of the city, and therefore are of no concern technically. It's Toronto's job to look after Toronto and Mississauga's job to look after Mississauga. It's the province's job to make sure the intersction within and between cities work smoothly....remember, municipal governments are just arm's length provincial employees.

People in the suburbs may not be in the jurisdiction of the centre city, but they work there, spend money there, and support the economic area that the centre city is a part of. Also, you are right that the city is an artificial construct that exists at the whim of the provincial government, but thats part of my point. While Missisauga, or Markham, or any neighbouring city may be politically distinct, they are tied to the success of Toronto, and Toronto is tied to them. It is in the interest of everyone to improve the state of both the centre cities and the suburbs.

Originally posted by KGB:
Of course highways promote sprawl...how else are people living in "sprawl" supposed to get to and from their "sprawl" locations? Local roads and transit are simply not an option (or walking/biking). And that is what sprawl is...unsustainable growth. Technically, Mississauga is no longer sprawl...it's just building on what was once sprawl.

Lemme guess, if I replace the word "highway" with "subway" its OK, right? Your point about Mississauga is even more confusing to me because it would indicate to me that the sprawl you are talking about is really growth. If a mode of development is inherantly bad, how can it become good? I think this proved my point that the term sprawl that people throw around so readily has no concrete definition that does not preclude historical growth that is now seen as positive or precludes type of growth that people see as positive.

I think most people would agree that the problems that most people identify as being issues with sprawl are more to do with the under-servicing of new areas. I dont think people have a problem with living in SFD homes, and I dont think people have a problem with living further from the city (especially if they are employed outside of the core), but people definately have a problem with getting stuck in traffic everyday. To me, if the transportation throughout the whole city were adequately provided, it would improve the economy of the city and improve the quality of life for everyone because it would allow people to avoid spending huge portions of their day fighting traffic.

[KGB]

"Yup seperate entities... just like say Leaside, or Swansea, or New Toronto, or North York, etc. What's the difference between the mechanics by which a suburban area in North York (in Toronto/416) and a suburban area in, say, Mississauga (not Toronto/in 905)? "


Except Leaside or Swansea are not separate entities at all, whereas Mississauga is. These areas are actually quite different in many ways...which is a reflection of being part of Toronto and not a 905 city.







"They will require similar municipal services, similar transportation, have similar demographics, etc."


Yea...except they don't. Toronto is a very different animal than the 905. Yes, they both require police and water and fire and garbage removal...but I assume we are discussing things a tad less fundemental than that.






"As for the critical mass of the downtown, that critical mass only exists in certain, highly locationally dependant activities such as high finance, law firms, government, etc."


I see you think in highly simplistic terms....it's FAR more complicated and comprehensive than that. There are many things beyond that which can only exist in highly concentrated, mixed-use, high density, engaging downtowns....that are simply never going to spontainiously happen in low-density, highway dependant, segregated, decentralized areas....EVER.







"In terms of forcing people, yes its market-driven, and yes, many people will choose to live downtown, but if the transit system favors downtown, and the city will more readily approve construction of condominiums in many areas, then there are certainly forces compelling people to live in the core."


The transit system doesn't "favour" downtown...downtown is where people need to go, and a transit system needs to serve the needs of the public. And what do you mean approve condo construction in other areas...are you familiar with condo construction in the city? There isn't a square inch left that doesn't have condos existing, u/c, or proposed.

This theory that people are being forced to live downtown is just plain weird...just like all your theories....do you dream this crap up way off in London Ont or something??






"Also, you are right that the city is an artificial construct that exists at the whim of the provincial government, but thats part of my point."


What point is that?? Toronto's city planning is totally different than the 905...that's why they are completely different. The province may hand out the basic responsibilities to the muinicipalities, but it is up to the individual municipalites to administer them as they see fit.






"It is in the interest of everyone to improve the state of both the centre cities and the suburbs."


No arguement with the idea...I just don't agree with your ideas on how and what those improvements are.






"Lemme guess, if I replace the word "highway" with "subway" its OK, right? "


Well, subways can only exist where they can be sustained, so that's a very moot point.








"Your point about Mississauga is even more confusing to me because it would indicate to me that the sprawl you are talking about is really growth. If a mode of development is inherantly bad, how can it become good? "


Well, Mississauga as a whole is improving....it was built origionally as the worse kind of bedroom community, car-dependent planning. Not really it's fault...it just came into existance when that was what was in vogue. It's at the point where no more damage can be done, and some of the damage is being reversed. Not that it's ever going to be Toronto, but at least it will have a chance at some reasonable dense, urban infastructure.






"To me, if the transportation throughout the whole city were adequately provided, it would improve the economy of the city and improve the quality of life for everyone because it would allow people to avoid spending huge portions of their day fighting traffic."

Well, if you are talking about highways running all over the place...forget it...it's never going to happen....and it will never be adequate if it did. That's the point you have to start understanding.







KGB

[Froster]

Originally Posted by KGB

Except Leaside or Swansea are not separate entities at all, whereas Mississauga is. These areas are actually quite different in many ways...which is a reflection of being part of Toronto and not a 905 city.

Except that they were seperate entities. Leaside and Swansea were distinct municipalities at the formation of Metro in the 50s, and are now completely integrated into Toronto (so much so that you appear to be ignorant of their former municipal status).

Originally Posted by KGB

What point is that?? Toronto's city planning is totally different than the 905...that's why they are completely different. The province may hand out the basic responsibilities to the muinicipalities, but it is up to the individual municipalites to administer them as they see fit.

My point was (and I think it was clear) is that the City of Toronto, as legally defined is an artificial construct, and can be revised at whim. This implies of course that at the whim of the Provincial government, Toronto can be remapped at any time. Therefore, to say that there is a significant distiction between a suburban area south of Steeles (for example) versus one north of Steeles is proposterous. I refer to my point above where neighbourhoods now accepted to be part of Toronto were previously seperate legal entities, and have since become "Toronto". Likewise Mississauga, while legally seperate is for all intents and purposes "Toronto" (using quotations to make it clear that I am not speaking about the legally defined Toronto).

Originally Posted by KGB

"They will require similar municipal services, similar transportation, have similar demographics, etc."

Yea...except they don't. Toronto is a very different animal than the 905. Yes, they both require police and water and fire and garbage removal...but I assume we are discussing things a tad less fundemental than that.

How is Toronto a different animal? See my comment above about North/South of Steeles. How can a neighbourhood on one side of the border be such a different animal than another neighbourhood on the other side of the border?

Originally Posted by KGB

"As for the critical mass of the downtown, that critical mass only exists in certain, highly locationally dependant activities such as high finance, law firms, government, etc."

I see you think in highly simplistic terms....it's FAR more complicated and comprehensive than that. There are many things beyond that which can only exist in highly concentrated, mixed-use, high density, engaging downtowns....that are simply never going to spontainiously happen in low-density, highway dependant, segregated, decentralized areas....EVER.

Its good to see that you didnt stop long enough to consider the actual point. I know that there are lots of different activities that require a great deal of centralization, but I dont think i excluded that list to the ones that I mentioned. These activities will not occurr in the suburbs, because these are the activities by which we all typically define the downtown. But none of this means that there are not other valuable economic activities that will benefit the city and that can comfortably locate in the outer city.

Originally Posted by KGB

The transit system doesn't "favour" downtown...downtown is where people need to go, and a transit system needs to serve the needs of the public.

Yes it does favour downtown. If I get on a GO train, where does it take me? If I jump on the Subway, where does it lead? Where are the streetcars located? Density supports transit downtown, but there is significant density beyond the core that is not served.

Originally Posted by KGB

"Lemme guess, if I replace the word "highway" with "subway" its OK, right? "

Well, subways can only exist where they can be sustained, so that's a very moot point.

Originally Posted by KGB

Well, if you are talking about highways running all over the place...forget it...it's never going to happen....and it will never be adequate if it did. That's the point you have to start understanding.

And if there is a sustainable population for a highway, then it shouldnt be developed because it can promote sprawl right? I was playing on the idea that there are types of transportation that some consider to be the ideal, but the reality is that the population as a whole just wants the best way that they can get to work. These days though, people calling for public transit are dissappointed by upper levels of gov't who wont support them, and people who want highways are treated like what they need to improve their access is unimportant. I have no problem with public transit, I take the bus everyday through the school year (despite having a car), and drive all summer to work. I dont think there is anything wrong with advocating a mixed transportation system that includes highways and transit to meet the needs of as many people as possible. This is where I think you dont understand the point. Different people will need different types of transport, but ignoring one group over another wont help anyone. As for your point that its difficult to acheive perfect service for all is true, but I dont understand why that is an argument to not address these problems. Just like no amount of highways will serve everyone, no amount of streetcars/subways/whatever will serve everyone, so we need an intelligent combination of both.

Originally Posted by KGB

Well, Mississauga as a whole is improving... ....Not that it's ever going to be Toronto, but at least it will have a chance at some reasonable dense, urban infastructure.

And when have you ever see dense, urban infrstructure spontaneously developed out of a bare field? This is an example of the process by which the city grows with a trend towards increasing (generally) density. Mississauga's development is a great example of what I am advocating as far as the benefit of highways because its areas of greatest development have occurred within sight of the highways that criss-cross it (around Square One, Mississauga Rd between the 407 and 401, along the QEW, etc).

Originally Posted by KGB

This theory that people are being forced to live downtown is just plain weird...just like all your theories....do you dream this crap up way off in London Ont or something??

Yes, the idea that people are literally forced is wierd, but I meant (if you were reading) that people choose to live downtown at least partially because their alternatives are limited due to poor access from many parts of the city, and the lack of employment in areas of the outer city.

As for dreaming crap up way off in London, you certainly made me laugh. I mentioned in my last post that I live in the GTA 1/3 of the year, and work in Toronto (for Toronto in fact). I'm in London 2/3 of the time for school, but I have lived in the GTA my whole life (for the last few years in Caledon). So I'm not making observations blindly from 180km away. I really do love the Toronto area, but I am truly afraid that choices are being made that are very detrimental to the well-being of the city such as the lack of infrastructure development and this idiotic greenbelt (which I dont want to get into too much in a thread about Toronto highways). The innovative creation of a city-wide metro government (which recognized that "Toronto" the city goes beyond the legally-defined city), the ambitious construction of the subways and the 400 series highways definately helped to create the boom that allowed Toronto to establish itself in the last 50 years. However, the failure to extend these positive ideas and programs by failing to create things such as a new Metro encompassing the whole GTA, the halt to subway construction (Sheppard hardly counts) and the lack of higway construction (the 407 was planned long before it was built afterall - and being made a permanent toll highway is ludicrous) is, in my opinion, jeopardizing the continued success of the city. I know financial considerations must be considered, but i would gladly support an increase in gas tax to fund infrastructure construction and renewal (especially if this got lots of SUV's off the roads ).

[KGB]

"Except that they were seperate entities. Leaside and Swansea were distinct municipalities at the formation of Metro in the 50s, and are now completely integrated into Toronto (so much so that you appear to be ignorant of their former municipal status)."


Yes...I am aware of all 13 municipalities that were involved in the formation of Toronto in 1953....I am also aware of all the other 47 annexations that took place between 1883-1914. But of course there is a huge difference...these were all older, pre-suburban post-war developments...many of them very old towns and villages built with the same planning....they were mostly small and needed annexation to supply basic infastructure such as water and sewage.

It would be at your own peril to assume my ignorance in these matters.







"How is Toronto a different animal? See my comment above about North/South of Steeles. How can a neighbourhood on one side of the border be such a different animal than another neighbourhood on the other side of the border? "


If you can't see it, then I suggest you look closer....and while the physical difference is obvious, a lot of the differences are not. And yes...the south side of Steeles is far different than the north side.








"Just like no amount of highways will serve everyone, no amount of streetcars/subways/whatever will serve everyone, so we need an intelligent combination of both."

Except, public transoit is far more efficient at moving people around. Of course we need roads...who said we didn't. But they contain far more modal split than they could possibly handle...there are WAYYYYYYY too many people driving around....more people have to take public transit, and less people (WAYYYYYY FUKING LESS) need to be on highways. The reason this is, is do to poor planning from 50 years ago....giant fuking mistakes we all have to pay for now....and in the far future...because it's a giant mistake that is going to take a very long time to correct.

The only thing we can hope for, is that gas prices rise so fuking high, nobody can afford to purchase, maintain, put gas in and insure a private vehicle.

But this can never happen until we build areas that promote sustainable, mixed-use high enough density. Too many people live in areas that have no choice but to drive everywhere.

The solution is not to give into it and just ruin everything else by bowing to the stupid car and building enough highway capacity to support the mistakes...that's just stupid.








"Yes it does favour downtown. If I get on a GO train, where does it take me? If I jump on the Subway, where does it lead? Where are the streetcars located? "


It doesn't "serve" downtown...you make it sound like a conspiracy....mass transit can only locate in areas that can best support it...so yes, if 95% of all people who take the goddamned GO Train all want to go downtown....where do you think they should build it...Stoney Creek?????

Use your brain.





"Density supports transit downtown, but there is significant density beyond the core that is not served."


Last time I checked, the vast majority of subway is located outside of downtown. 96% of of every household is no more than 400m from public transit...with very good service. So...who is it you think is not "served". A public transit user in the most far flung and suburban like corner of Toronto still has transit service better than almost anyone in North America.

I think you are also discounting the fiscal and political realities at play here...it's very nice to be an armchair transit and city planning expert....reality is something much more difficult.







"And if there is a sustainable population for a highway, then it shouldnt be developed because it can promote sprawl right? "


No...that's not what I'm saying at all...please listen. Highways are absolutely necessary forms of transportation. But If you build neighbourhoods and towns and cities in such a way as to only be able to sustain one method of transportation, then you have made a mistake.....highways have a legitamate use, but should never be the only solution....otherwise development will ALWAYS outpace highway capacity.






"Different people will need different types of transport, but ignoring one group over another wont help anyone. "


Right...except which mode of transport is the one being ignored here??? Excactly.








" I have no problem with public transit"

No...you seem to have a problem with highways. And the answer to that problem is not making more highways accessable to the population...but more population accessable to sustainable urban transit.






"And when have you ever see dense, urban infrstructure spontaneously developed out of a bare field? "

Everywhere prior to the post-war suburban mentality...and within cities that promote good urban planning....check out the old railway lands in Toronto.








"Mississauga's development is a great example of what I am advocating as far as the benefit of highways because its areas of greatest development have occurred within sight of the highways that criss-cross it (around Square One, Mississauga Rd between the 407 and 401, along the QEW, etc)."


Ah...but when Mississauga was planned origionally, it was totally around the car...that's why they located the "downtown" in the middle of all those highways. That city is now seeing the errors of it's ways, and making the necessary changes to reverse as much as possible those mistakes. Luckily for Mississauga, they will make a rather decent go of it...but it will never be all that great...just passable...MAYBE. Can't say the same for most other places....too many people and politicians just don't care...and they will be a mess forever (or until the oil runs out anyway).

In the end...I am happy to let the people of the 905 decide their future...in the meantime, it is in Toronto's best interest to steer clear of them and not let their mistakes taint the city of Toronto...I never go to Mississauga, because there is nothing there for me to go for. I care about the health of the region...but then again, the health of the city of Toronto should matter to the rest of the region as well. And the more Toronto stays the hell away from the extremely bad influence of the suburbs, the better off everybody will be.



And you should stop reading so much Wendall Cox.




KGB

[Froster]

Originally Posted by KGB

I am aware of all 13 municipalities that were involved in the formation of Toronto in 1953....But of course there is a huge difference...they were mostly small and needed annexation to supply basic infastructure such as water and sewage.

It would be at your own peril to assume my ignorance in these matters.

The point was not why they were annexed, the point was that they are part of the city now. You make comments indicating that there is such a significant difference between life in the city of Toronto vs. life outside of Toronto, while I am arguing that the areas that were once outside, and have now been annexed and integrated into Toronto, and I see no reason why this cannot happen. If you take Etobicoke or Scarborough for example, at the formation of Metro, they were largely rural, with substantial suburban development, and have since seen increasing urbanity. Cities change, grow, develop, and cause the same to happen to their neighbours. There is no static Toronto, where everything in it is definately Toronto, and everything outside is not. Just like Toronto expanded before, it will again, and those newly annexed area will become part of our common definition of the city.

Originally Posted by KGB

If you can't see it, then I suggest you look closer....and while the physical difference is obvious, a lot of the differences are not. And yes...the south side of Steeles is far different than the north side.

I dont buy it. Since you are so sure about there being such a significant difference, please enlighten me. I dont see any difference other than a political boundary. If you do establish a difference, I would hope that it would hold true for all of Toronto, not just suburban Toronto vs. 905.

Originally Posted by KGB

Except, public transoit is far more efficient at moving people around. Of course we need roads...who said we didn't. But they contain far more modal split than they could possibly handle...there are WAYYYYYYY too many people driving around....more people have to take public transit, and less people (WAYYYYYY FUKING LESS) need to be on highways. The reason this is, is do to poor planning from 50 years ago....giant fuking mistakes we all have to pay for now....and in the far future...because it's a giant mistake that is going to take a very long time to correct.

Inefficient is a matter of conditions. If you took all the suv's and minivan's with only one occupant in them off the road you would improve the efficiency of the road system dramatically (obviously), or even if the gov't really put in place some meaningful fuel efficiency requirements (that exempted no vehicle that can be driven with a G licence). All these things are good, and developing public transit is great too. Im not advocating that there is no need for additional public transit (i explicitly mentioned this above), but I also dont think that there is enough highway capacity currently, and there will certainly not be enough to handle the future growth of the GTA.

Originally Posted by KGB

The only thing we can hope for, is that gas prices rise so fuking high, nobody can afford to purchase, maintain, put gas in and insure a private vehicle.

I dont think this will ever happen. People will not give up their cars easily now that they have come to rely on them so much. In my last post, I voiced my support for increased fuel taxes to support both road maintenance and construction as well as public transit. I would rather see that happen than to see the money go to the oil companies. Financial deterrents arent bad, but if you can get infrastructure rebuilt, all the better (and its a lot more desirable to me than a per household charge for free transit on people's property taxes that you have mentioned in another thread)

Originally Posted by KGB

Too many people live in areas that have no choice but to drive everywhere.

Very true. This can also be addressed by working to encourage people to work closer to home. This does not mean that everyone must live downtown either, but rather that encouraging mixed-use developments and ensuring that there are favourable consditions for commerce in the suburbs that extends beyond retail space. I would rather live in a city of Urban Realms (such as that described by James Vance in The Continuing City)

Originally Posted by KGB

The solution is not to give into it and just ruin everything else by bowing to the stupid car and building enough highway capacity to support the mistakes...that's just stupid.

Any transportation system based on a single mode of transport is stupid. That does not negate the advantages of highway development, it merely cautions us against considering it exclusively.

Originally Posted by KGB

It doesn't "serve" downtown...you make it sound like a conspiracy....mass transit can only locate in areas that can best support it...so yes, if 95% of all people who take the goddamned GO Train all want to go downtown....where do you think they should build it...Stoney Creek?????

Use your brain.

Its not a conspiracy, its planned. It makes sense to start construction of the subway downtown, and to initially target the downtown core with GO, but there is no reason to stop there. When you say that 95% of the people on the GO system go downtown you are probably corrent, but if you want to go to Stoney Creek, you dont get on a train going downtown. There should be more east-west transit routes in the city, as the only real east-west mass transit is the subway, which is out of reach for a great number of people.

As for using my brain, I would hope that you would avoid masking your lack of concrete points with a personal insult.

Originally Posted by KGB

Last time I checked, the vast majority of subway is located outside of downtown. 96% of of every household is no more than 400m from public transit...with very good service. So...who is it you think is not "served". A public transit user in the most far flung and suburban like corner of Toronto still has transit service better than almost anyone in North America.

By 400m from public transit, you must mean busses, which you and I both know are not ideal for a great deal of people, and are verry inefficient as a method of commuting. When speaking about transit investments, a bus fleet is necessart of course, but I am considering mass transit such as subways, heavy rail like GO and streetcars that will allow people who currently drive to have a viable alternative. These alternatives do not exist in the suburbs in virtually all of the GTA- whether inside of Toronto or not.

Originally Posted by KGB

I think you are also discounting the fiscal and political realities at play here...it's very nice to be an armchair transit and city planning expert....reality is something much more difficult.

I have not entirely discounted the costs involved any more than you do. I had previously indicated that I would be willing as a driver my willingness to increase gas taxes to pay for much of this. The infrastructure we have was built largely with this type of funding (before it was diverted to other uses), and I think it is far to have drivers pay for the roads they drive on, and to support alternatives to driving.

Originally Posted by KGB

No...that's not what I'm saying at all...please listen. Highways are absolutely necessary forms of transportation. But If you build neighbourhoods and towns and cities in such a way as to only be able to sustain one method of transportation, then you have made a mistake.....highways have a legitamate use, but should never be the only solution....otherwise development will ALWAYS outpace highway capacity.

The current situation is more a problem of no access to trasportation. People are relying on local roads that are slow to travel along and expensive for a municipality to maintain. I have never in this discussion indicated that highways are the only viable method of transport- merely that we do not have enough of them (as well as not having enough subways, etc.). All I have said is that there are huge swaths of the city that are underserved by any mass tranist or highways and that should be fixed for the benefit of the whole city.

Originally Posted by KGB

Right...except which mode of transport is the one being ignored here??? Excactly.

Both. Construction of any new types of transportation has been virtually non-existant. The 407 and the sheppard subway are drops in the pan compared to what we need. What I was saying was just that your points have thus far been very critical of highways, while I have been advocating that a mixture of public transit and highways is needed and I think that you must have a balance, not a preference of one over the other.

Originally Posted by KGB

No...you seem to have a problem with highways. And the answer to that problem is not making more highways accessable to the population...but more population accessable to sustainable urban transit.

I like highways, and I like public transit. I think that it is good for the city for people to get to work as efficiently as possible, and different people need different transport depending on their situations. Constructing neither urban transit nor highways is doing us no good.

Originally Posted by KGB

Everywhere prior to the post-war suburban mentality...and within cities that promote good urban planning....check out the old railway lands in Toronto.

Development of the old railyway lands is hardly high-density springing up from a field. That was virtually an urban canyon with high density surrounding it. These lands had been developed previously, and are changing their use. What I was referring to is that as the city grows outward, it will not grow in a unifrom spread of high density, instead there will be a gradual growth of residential areas that will become increasingly urban as time goes by. There are no constraints in freshly developed areas forcing the city to grow up. It will not initially grow upwards until the area becomes developed already, land values increase, and as a result, new uses will lead to higher buildings and increased density.

As for a 'post-war mentality', what is necessarily wrong with that. How can you expect the city to remain in the form that it was under industrialization? The city has evolved and changed, and really there is no going back. I'm not sure if there was another better way to go about it, but then again, neither do you, since we can only look at what we have. Regardless of what was right or not, it is certainly important to provide transit to people and businesses that are needed to be successful.

Originally Posted by KGB

Ah...but when Mississauga was planned origionally, it was totally around the car...that's why they located the "downtown" in the middle of all those highways. That city is now seeing the errors of it's ways, and making the necessary changes to reverse as much as possible those mistakes. Luckily for Mississauga, they will make a rather decent go of it...but it will never be all that great...just passable...MAYBE. Can't say the same for most other places....too many people and politicians just don't care...and they will be a mess forever (or until the oil runs out anyway).

Mississauga planned those areas near highways, yes, but those areas did not develop until the highways were built, regardless of what they are zoned. To use the example of London (partially because it is a bit rediculous), the downtown of London is zoned for greater density than midtown Manhattan, but that will never happen because of the location of the city geographically, and also because there is poor access to the downtown from the rest of the city. Likewise, Mississaga may have zoned these areas near the highways, but without the access that those highways provide, those lands would not have developed as they are today.

Originally Posted by KGB

In the end...I am happy to let the people of the 905 decide their future...in the meantime, it is in Toronto's best interest to steer clear of them and not let their mistakes taint the city of Toronto...I never go to Mississauga, because there is nothing there for me to go for. I care about the health of the region...but then again, the health of the city of Toronto should matter to the rest of the region as well. And the more Toronto stays the hell away from the extremely bad influence of the suburbs, the better off everybody will be.

It is in Toronto's best interest to make sure that its neighbours are prospering along with it, and it is in the neighbours' interest to ensure that Toronto remains strong. There is no way that Torono will remain the same as it is without the rest of the GTA. I dont think there is a distinction (especially in economic terms) between Toronto the city and Toronto the region. However, I also dont think cities like Vaughan should so actively poach businesses from the rest of the area. As I mentioned before, a new Metro with all of the GTA and new transit/transportation programs to serve that area are in the interest of everyone.

Originally Posted by KGB

And you should stop reading so much Wendall Cox.

I had to look this guy up. I dont agree. He has lots of stats that may be true, but I disagree with the overall bent of the arguments that he has on his site. Names that would be more accurate as sources of my viewpoints would be Alonzo, Vance, Peter Muller, Sam Warner, Tunnard&Pushkarov, Kevin Lynch, and personal experience with Toronto Planning (current and looking at past works). The city is a complex place, Wendall Cox hasnt written anything that I've seen that is nearly pragmatic enough to reflect any understanding of it (besides which he seems rather beholden to certain special interests particularly when speaking to Congress). Im not the fan of the oil companies that he is for sure. I support emissions controls, alternative fuels, etc, because I think that the car is valuable, but that we need to work to fix the negative environmental impacts that it has (Part of this btw, is that I am no particular fan of hydrogen fuel cells because of poor efficiency- less than a conventional diesel of the same power- and because the only viable source of hydrogen is steam reformation of fossil fuels, which is in my opinion the root of the interest by oil companies).

[KGB]

"The point was not why they were annexed, the point was that they are part of the city now. You make comments indicating that there is such a significant difference between life in the city of Toronto vs. life outside of Toronto, while I am arguing that the areas that were once outside, and have now been annexed and integrated into Toronto, and I see no reason why this cannot happen."


Haven't you just shot yourself in the foot? If these once separate entities have been intigrated into the city of Toronto, then why are you advocating this happen to the 905 if there is no difference? Why does Mississauga and the like need to be intigrated into Toronto to benefit if you say there is no difference? Mississauga should be able to do the same things and behave as Toronto does...there's nothing preventing that.






"I also dont think that there is enough highway capacity currently, and there will certainly not be enough to handle the future growth of the GTA."


Not if the current developments ensure their use. Too much of the GTA is car-dependent. The cure is to decrease highway necessity...treat the disease...not the symptom.







"People will not give up their cars easily now that they have come to rely on them so much. "


Right...so let's do something to decrease the reliance on them eh?








"This can also be addressed by working to encourage people to work closer to home. This does not mean that everyone must live downtown either, but rather that encouraging mixed-use developments and ensuring that there are favourable consditions for commerce in the suburbs that extends beyond retail space. I would rather live in a city of Urban Realms"


That's excactly what I am advocating. More highways are not necessary in this scenario, so I don't understand your point. Either way, this is not how suburbia was designed.






"Any transportation system based on a single mode of transport is stupid."

Well, that's how suburbia was built. And that's why roads are over-used. You want to increase this...why?








"By 400m from public transit, you must mean busses, which you and I both know are not ideal for a great deal of people, and are verry inefficient as a method of commuting."


Actually, buses are very efficient as a method of moving people....transit efficiency is based on ridership levels and cost-to-service figures....I hope you aren't suggesting building subways under every bus route in the city? TTC buses are very efficient because they attract ridership with excellent coverage, excellent frequency, and the fact EVERY surface route connects to the subway and other inter-modal connections.







"I am considering mass transit such as subways, heavy rail like GO and streetcars that will allow people who currently drive to have a viable alternative. These alternatives do not exist in the suburbs in virtually all of the GTA- whether inside of Toronto or not."


Well, you are incorrect about that...it is entirely viable anywhere in the 416....just not in the 905. hmmm...starting to see why there is a difference between the two now?

And there is a very good reason why they don't exist in the 905....that kind of mass transit is dependent on a built environment that can support it...and that just doesn't exist in the 905. Who's fault is that?

If Mississauga is in such need of subways...then why don't they build them? Nothing stopping them...don't need Toronto for that. Why haven't they done it then I wonder??? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SUPPORT THEM...and they can't support them because they have intentionally built the place not to.






"The current situation is more a problem of no access to trasportation."


Huh??? The 905 has a problem with access to public transit...but that's their fault...Toronto does not have that problem...or do I need to go over the stats again?






"All I have said is that there are huge swaths of the city that are underserved by any mass tranist or highways and that should be fixed for the benefit of the whole city."


You are starting to confuse me...when you say "city", what are you talking about...Toronto or the GTA?

There are not "huge swaths" of Toronto not served by transit....again...do I need to remind you of real figures??????

And highways are for longer distance traveling...it's not as though we need to build highways within a short distance of every houshold in the city like we would a subway station. Getting to a highway in Toronto or anyplace else in the GTA is very easy. Do you really think it's everyone's right to be within 5 minutes drive of a highway on-ramp????








"Constructing neither urban transit nor highways is doing us no good. "


We don't need any more highways...we need more transit-friendly development....that solves both problems.








"What I was referring to is that as the city grows outward, it will not grow in a unifrom spread of high density, instead there will be a gradual growth of residential areas that will become increasingly urban as time goes by."


Ah...so you think the only way to go is to build very badly planned areas first, and then try and fix them later? Sorry...that's just stupid.







"As for a 'post-war mentality', what is necessarily wrong with that."

We wouldn't be having this conversation.


"How can you expect the city to remain in the form that it was under industrialization? The city has evolved and changed, and really there is no going back. "

Are you sure there's no going back? Sure seems like Toronto is applying smart planning to reverse any mistakes of the post-war era.







"I'm not sure if there was another better way to go about it, but then again, neither do you, since we can only look at what we have. "


And what we have is...Toronto good....905 bad. The 905 had every oportunity to do it right...and they didn't. Seems to me, back in the early 70's, Toronto was building places like St Lawrence...what was the 905 doing?

Still convinced there is no difference between the two?








"Regardless of what was right or not, it is certainly important to provide transit to people and businesses that are needed to be successful."


Right...Toronto has, and continues to do so....the 905...nope.

Still convinced there is no difference between the two?







"Mississaga may have zoned these areas near the highways, but without the access that those highways provide, those lands would not have developed as they are today."


And how do you see Mississauga developed?? Been there? It's a mess. The new concentration around Square One is better than nothing, but this is more in spite of highways, rather than because of them....they have finally embraced a bit of smart development which tends away from the highways, instead of the old idea of totally relying on them.







"I dont think there is a distinction (especially in economic terms) between Toronto the city and Toronto the region. "


Who cares...but there is a big distinction between them in terms of lifestyle....you like the city...live there....you like the suburbs...go live there...just don't complain about the downfalls.






"As I mentioned before, a new Metro with all of the GTA and new transit/transportation programs to serve that area are in the interest of everyone."


Well, a GTA wide single municipality is unlikely to happen...political implications and economies of scale become a nightmare...don't expect much more than a regional body with little region-wide power (that will remain at Queen's Park I'm afraid....and probably rightly so).

In terms of a region-wide transit system, it would kill the TTC. The TTC is so good because it oporates within the confines of Toronto, which is built and designed to accomodate it's service....extend it's responsiblities to encompas the huge area that is poorly geared towards public transit, and the whole house of cards collapses.

No...for Toronto to remain strong, especially transit wise. it needs to keep a distance from it's ill-desinged neighbours. The best we can do is provide a good example, and hope they follow...if they don't, at least Toronto doesn't go down the toilet with them.






KGB

[Froster]

Originally Posted by KGB

Haven't you just shot yourself in the foot? If these once separate entities have been intigrated into the city of Toronto, then why are you advocating this happen to the 905 if there is no difference? Why does Mississauga and the like need to be intigrated into Toronto to benefit if you say there is no difference? Mississauga should be able to do the same things and behave as Toronto does...there's nothing preventing that.

No, I've blown your point to hell. If an area once outside of Toronto, can become part of the fabric of the city within the span of 40 or 50 years, than it mustn't have been very dissimilar, right? My point is (and has always been) that to establish a bouindary, and say, like you are, that one side of the street is inherently different, is a false presumption. The people on both sides share the same concerns, the same values, the same everything, all that seperates them is a road, and narrow minded thinking of people who choose to argue otherwise. If you talked to either group of people, they would not think they are different, so how can you argue that they are?

Originally Posted by KGB

Not if the current developments ensure their use. Too much of the GTA is car-dependent. The cure is to decrease highway necessity...treat the disease...not the symptom.

And by building nothing, you make everyone more upset. Highways are good for some, subways good for others, etc. but the current heads up their assess attitude by uppper levels of gov't is solving nothing. We have not seen any new expansion of the TTC beyond bus routes and one virtually inconsequential subway line in some time, while the population of the city has increased dramatically. This isnt a criticizm of the TTC, but rather one of a lack of funding for the TTC. Likewise, in suburban communities, there is no transit other than busses because of a lack of funding, and in other areas where highways would be beneficial both for commerce and commuting, there has been no construction either. The cure to the problem is to address the needs of everyone according to their needs. I dont think it is wise to adopt an elitist attitude assigning right and wrong ways of people getting to work and would prefer to concentrate on meeting the needs of the citizens.

Originally Posted by KGB

Right...so let's do something to decrease the reliance on them eh?

In some cases, yes, give them a better alternative, in others make sure that they dont need to use them more than they need to. Depends on the area, and it depends on the people. Highways bring commerce, commerce creates jobs, and if you can give local people access to those jobs its better for those workers, and better for the city because they dont need to drive half way acroos town to get there.

Originally Posted by KGB

That's excactly what I am advocating. More highways are not necessary in this scenario, so I don't understand your point. Either way, this is not how suburbia was designed.

More highways are necessary for those areas that are not ideally served my other forms of transportation. If people in a given area can be served by a highway, and not by transit, then why not provide them with that highway?

Originally Posted by KGB

Well, that's how suburbia was built. And that's why roads are over-used. You want to increase this...why?

I dont want to increase this at the expense of other options, but rather in conjunction with alternatives. The reason why boils down to the needs of the residents, and what will address their needs most effectively. In some areas, highways may be more effective, in others it could be rail, or something else.

Originally Posted by KGB

Actually, buses are very efficient as a method of moving people....transit efficiency is based on ridership levels and cost-to-service figures....I hope you aren't suggesting building subways under every bus route in the city? TTC buses are very efficient because they attract ridership with excellent coverage, excellent frequency, and the fact EVERY surface route connects to the subway and other inter-modal connections.

Busses are efficient on a people per vehicle basis, but a minivan with mulitple occupants (for example) is more energy efficient than a full bus. My main point was in relation to efficiency of time. I have a co-worker who rides the subways everyday from north york to work (in etobicoke) who is served very well by busses and subways, but it takes him twice as long to take transit than to drive. In a case like that, he stays entirely within the TTC system, but due to the switching from route to route (including the subway) he is left with a preference to drive to work when possible. To me this indicates that the transit system needs to be expanded to help this coworker, but I personally would benefit more from a highway. This is the type of situation that I think shows the need for new construction of highways and transit. You are right to point out that the TTC does a great job with what it has, but it could be and should be better, likewise, in this thread we can see that Toronto has some amazing highways, but if they are jammed everynight, along with alternative routes, we clearly need to address that too.

Originally Posted by KGB

Well, you are incorrect about that...it is entirely viable anywhere in the 416....just not in the 905. hmmm...starting to see why there is a difference between the two now?

Nope still dont. I dont see why if transit is effective in one city, another city could not benefit as well. Likewise, if one city has good highway access, another city could not benefit as well. A mix of both for both areas would likely provide a much more efficient system overall.

Originally Posted by KGB

If Mississauga is in such need of subways...then why don't they build them? Nothing stopping them...don't need Toronto for that. Why haven't they done it then I wonder??? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SUPPORT THEM...and they can't support them because they have intentionally built the place not to.

Umm... Toronto isnt building subways either (you and I both know that Sheppard is inconsequential). Does that mean that Toronto cant support them and the whole idea should be scrapped? No. The reason why the GTA isnt seeing development of the transit system is that no municipality can shoulder the capital expense alone, and the upper levels of gov't are unwilling to work to address that. There are lots of suburban areas that could support them, but can not construct them on the property tax base alone, just like there are lots of areas in Toronto that could use improved highway access, but they also cannot afford to build them.

Originally Posted by KGB

Huh??? The 905 has a problem with access to public transit...but that's their fault...Toronto does not have that problem...or do I need to go over the stats again?

What stats? 400m from a bus stop? I dont think there are many cities in the 905 that would fail to meet that simple measure. Hell, even London's pathetic transit system can boast service like that. Things need to be better than that.

Originally Posted by KGB

You are starting to confuse me...when you say "city", what are you talking about...Toronto or the GTA?

There are huge swaths of TORONTO unserved by mass transit (read: other than busses). If you live in the NW of the city or basically any part of Scarborough other than near the town centre, you are a LONG way away from any transit other than a bus. Thats no different from the situation in the suburbs hence my point that these areas will have very common concerns with the suburbs, despite being in Toronto and the TTC service area.

Originally Posted by KGB

There are not "huge swaths" of Toronto not served by transit....again...do I need to remind you of real figures??????

There are not areas devoid of all transit, but there are many areas that are not served by the type of high-speed, efficient types of transit tha will keep people out of their cars.

Originally Posted by KGB

And highways are for longer distance traveling...it's not as though we need to build highways within a short distance of every houshold in the city like we would a subway station. Getting to a highway in Toronto or anyplace else in the GTA is very easy. Do you really think it's everyone's right to be within 5 minutes drive of a highway on-ramp????

Highways are not just for long distance, they are also to route traffic efficiently through a city. Distance is not a direct result of highway use, but it is a byproduct of people working farther from home than they would probably like to. Highways enable these people to some degree, but they also enable the transport of goods within a city that will lead to more favourable conditions to create more jobs, so people will not have to travel as far.

Originally Posted by KGB

We don't need any more highways...we need more transit-friendly development....that solves both problems.

No it doesnt. The problem is not sovled by forcing people to make a dramatic change in their lifestyle, it is solved by working to include people in a system that works to balance their wants with a set of conditions that will enable those wants. This is the type of argument that will never work. In a democratic system such as ours, the idea that you can force people to conform to an ideal such as yours is as infeasible as proposing that everyone can have hover cars. If people dont want to, they wont. Its that simple. Therefore, I think it is better to work to match people expectations with a means to acheive those expectations. Gas tax, lower emissions, greater efficiency, etc. would all mitigate the negative effects of car use, while providing a revenue stream to support transit and highways.

Originally Posted by KGB

Ah...so you think the only way to go is to build very badly planned areas first, and then try and fix them later? Sorry...that's just stupid.

Did you get distracted and read another post? I said that cities grow outward in a fairly predictable progression. They spread with progressive degrees of density, radiating from more dense centre along transportation routes. Only an aritificially imposed barrier can hasten this urbanization to proceed with higher densities, but this strategy comes at the price of making rents and housing prices rise out of reach of many people.

Originally Posted by KGB

We wouldn't be having this conversation.

This hardly addresses the point. Its true that planning trends are somewhat cyclical so certain periods will be attractive to some, other periods attractive to others, so you may inherently dislike post-war planning ideas, but my point was more that this is all done, and that we must still provide for the health of these area as is necessary.

Originally Posted by KGB

Are you sure there's no going back? Sure seems like Toronto is applying smart planning to revrse any mistakes of the post-war era.

Yes there is no going back. I dont see any examples in Toronto of urban areas reverting to rural use. I do see the development of increasing urbanity in some areas, but thats hardly going back. As I said above, trends are cyclical, but there really isnt any regression of the city.

Originally Posted by KGB

And what we have is...Toronto good....905 bad. The 905 had every oportunity to do it right...and they didn't. Seems to me, back in the early 70's, Toronto was building places like St Lawrence...what was the 905 doing?

Still convinced there is no difference between the two?

I really hope that you are not seriously this close-minded. Toronto is not all good, the 905 is not all bad. There is allways room for improvement. Its interesting that you mention the 70s, a period where poorly conceived development controls forced housing prices in Toronto to sky-rocket, and placed conditions on the surrounding municipalities that they could not adequately provide under. Decisions such as limiting sewer and water service expansions north of the city inflated the market in Toronto, and limited the density and types of development possible everywhere else. Once these policies were revoke, there was a sudden boom in the 905 as a result. If it werent for this needless meddling, more gradual growth likely could have occured, and the people of Toronto would have been able to enjoy a much lower cost of living.

"Regardless of what was right or not, it is certainly important to provide transit to people and businesses that are needed to be successful."

Originally Posted by KGB

And how do you see Mississauga developed?? Been there? It's a mess. The new concentration around Square One is better than nothing, but this is more in spite of highways, rather than because of them....they have finally embraced a bit of smart development which tends away from the highways, instead of the old idea of totally relying on them.

As a matter of fact, yes I have been there. Taking criticism in this regard from someone who previously commented that he never goes there is rather rich. How is Square One in spite of highways? It is near to the 401, beside the 403. Likewise, new commercial construction is occuring on Mississauga Rd between the 407 and 401. Erin mills is near many of the same highways. Only the areas that predate the highways like streetsville and Port Credit can be relistically described as existing without aid of the highways, but they are a minor component of the population and the economy.

Originally Posted by KGB

Who cares...but there is a big distinction between them in terms of lifestyle....you like the city...live there....you like the suburbs...go live there...just don't complain about the downfalls.

To go back to my previous example (because I dont think you have ever come close to explaining it in your 416-good 905-bad world), if I looked at two suburban communities across Steeles from each other, there is no difference other than a political boundary. You seem willing to suport the calls for the people south of steeles for transit, but the ones on the other side of the road made a choice that you argue excludes them from consideration.

Originally Posted by KGB

Well, a GTA wide single municipality is unlikely to happen...political implications and economies of scale become a nightmare...don't expect much more than a regional body with little region-wide power (that will remain at Queen's Park I'm afraid....and probably rightly so).

In terms of a region-wide transit system, it would kill the TTC. The TTC is so good because it oporates within the confines of Toronto, which is built and designed to accomodate it's service....extend it's responsiblities to encompas the huge area that is poorly geared towards public transit, and the whole house of cards collapses.

No...for Toronto to remain strong, especially transit wise. it needs to keep a distance from it's ill-desinged neighbours. The best we can do is provide a good example, and hope they follow...if they don't, at least Toronto doesn't go down the toilet with them.

These arguments arent new, people said the same thing about Metro, amalgamation of some of the cities in Metro, and then finally the Megacity. Integration of beurocracies will be difficult no doubt, but binding coordination between all of the GTA is a necessary step to ensuring that city remains strong. Would it not be desirable if Mississauga or Vaughan did not so actively compete with Toronto to attract businesses?

As for the TTC, it would be much more effective in acheiving the goals that you have for it (to get people to use it rather than a car) if people could access it directly. By grouping all transit in the GTA together, much more can be accomplished by making sure that the entire area is served in the most effective way possible. Can you imagine the number of people that are discouraged from using transit with each additional transfer they must make between their home and their destination? A unified transit system is much better equipped to deal with this than a collection of disjointed systems.

[james2390]

Great stuff! Freeways are fun.

[KGB]

"No, I've blown your point to hell."


Yea...sure you have....I know ya are...but what am I?







"If an area once outside of Toronto, can become part of the fabric of the city within the span of 40 or 50 years, than it mustn't have been very dissimilar, right? "


Wrong...either they were pre-war areas that already had similar built form...or new areas which reflected the planning values of the City of Toronto (at varying times)








"My point is (and has always been) that to establish a bouindary, and say, like you are, that one side of the street is inherently different, is a false presumption."


And I'm saying that isn't the case...you are just imagining this from whatever simple ideas come into your head...I'm going on actual experience and physical/demographic ecidence.







"If you talked to either group of people, they would not think they are different, so how can you argue that they are? "


I have...you see, I actually have a long history of cross-border experience.








"And by building nothing, you make everyone more upset."


Well, transit has been expanded in the 905 (considering it practically didn't exist a short while ago)...but it's very difficult to make a go of it, if too much of the development is not transit-sustainable. The trick is to build more transit-friendly developments, and expand on what is already there.






"in suburban communities, there is no transit other than busses because of a lack of funding"


All transit needs more funding...but the root of the problem with the suburbs is not a lack of funding...but a lack of transit-friendly development. Buses are the only viable mode that can be sustained...outside of commuter transit.






"The cure to the problem is to address the needs of everyone according to their needs."

Illogical sentence...but I know what you are trying to say. But the answer is no....you want to cater to bad planning by appeasing them...this is just wrong.







"I dont think it is wise to adopt an elitist attitude assigning right and wrong ways of people getting to work and would prefer to concentrate on meeting the needs of the citizens."


Sorry, but all this sprawl is hurting everyone...it has to be stopped...rewarding bad planning by trying to sustain it is just plain stupid....it would never work even if we had the land, money toi do it (which we don't).








"In some cases, yes, give them a better alternative, in others make sure that they dont need to use them more than they need to. Depends on the area, and it depends on the people."


What do we call that kind of talk...gobble-de-gook??? he he

Let's pretend that makes some kind of sense...so in some cases, we should offer people better alternatives (I would think everyone should have better alternatives). Make sure they don't need to use them more than they need to??????? That's like a Salvadore Dali sentence or something??? Makes no sense.









"Highways bring commerce, commerce creates jobs, and if you can give local people access to those jobs its better for those workers, and better for the city because they dont need to drive half way acroos town to get there."


Right...and wouldn't better transit and beter mixed-use developments do that? What's hurting commerce and jobs is the unecessary clogging of our roads that don't need to be.








"More highways are necessary for those areas that are not ideally served my other forms of transportation. If people in a given area can be served by a highway, and not by transit, then why not provide them with that highway? "


More highways are not necessary...the ones we have are more than adequate to handle what they are designed for. If what we are lacking, is better transit service in the suburbs, and not having it is causing havoc on our roads...wouldn't the intelligent solution be to provide what is missing and causing huge problems....LIKE FUKING TRANSIT!!!








"Busses are efficient on a people per vehicle basis, but a minivan with mulitple occupants (for example) is more energy efficient than a full bus."


Well holy shit!!!....you should inform the TTC of this discovery of yours...they should replace all vehicles with mini-vans obviously. LOL Com'on dude...you've said a lot of stupid things so far...but this takes the cake.







"My main point was in relation to efficiency of time. I have a co-worker who rides the subways everyday from north york to work (in etobicoke) who is served very well by busses and subways, but it takes him twice as long to take transit than to drive."


The advantages of public transit is not always just how long it takes. But...if everyone took that attitude, the local roads would be even worse than they are now. Maybe he's one of those people clogging up the highways who doesn't need to be?






"To me this indicates that the transit system needs to be expanded to help this coworker, but I personally would benefit more from a highway."


Well, first of all, it's not all about you and your prefernce to drive your car all over the place (you sound like that useless fat fuk suburban yuppie scumbag councior Rob Ford), and secondly, mass transit travel over greater distances is going to take more time than driving from point a to b. If you don't like that particular downside, then move closer to where you work...we all have to make sacrifices depending on our personal lifestyle choices....we aren't going to ruin the city to cater to selfish and stupid people.









"we can see that Toronto has some amazing highways, but if they are jammed everynight, along with alternative routes, we clearly need to address that too."


And you think addressing the problem, is to encourage more of the behavior that causes it??? You're too weird.

And besides...just where is the money...and where is the space to start putting all these highways you seem to think we need???








"I dont see why if transit is effective in one city, another city could not benefit as well. "


Then I suggest you take a closer look at the suburbs, and tell me you can't grasp why they don't have as effective transit. It's not really all that difficult to recognize.






"Umm... Toronto isnt building subways either (you and I both know that Sheppard is inconsequential). "


Funny...I could have sworn Toronto has been building subways for 50 years now. And no...Sheppard is certainly not inconsequential at all...or does the billions of dollars in development that suddenly appeared with it just seem like a big coincidence to you???






"The reason why the GTA isnt seeing development of the transit system is that no municipality can shoulder the capital expense alone, and the upper levels of gov't are unwilling to work to address that."


How many times do you have to be reminded of this....better funding is lovely...but if you do not build areas that can reasonably sustain transit, then all the money in the world isn't going to help.







"just like there are lots of areas in Toronto that could use improved highway access, but they also cannot afford to build them."

What are you talking about????? The whole GTA has great access to highways...oh right...your the suburban lazy person, who thinks you have some birth-rite to have a highway on/off ramp with 5 minutes of where you live and anywhere you want to go. Dream on hairdo.








"What stats? 400m from a bus stop? I dont think there are many cities in the 905 that would fail to meet that simple measure."


Well, that's not true...but it really has less to do with how far a person has to walk...and more to do with the service they get when they get there...and that my dear, is the major difference between TTC and 905 transit.







"There are huge swaths of TORONTO unserved by mass transit (read: other than busses). If you live in the NW of the city or basically any part of Scarborough other than near the town centre, you are a LONG way away from any transit other than a bus. Thats no different from the situation in the suburbs hence my point that these areas will have very common concerns with the suburbs, despite being in Toronto and the TTC service area."


Dude...stop talking and do a little research...you are just making Me repeat myself....THERE IS A GIANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SERVICE!!!!!

Besides having access to the subways via EVERY FUKING SURFACE ROUTE...comparing just bus service is night and day.









"The problem is not sovled by forcing people to make a dramatic change in their lifestyle, it is solved by working to include people in a system that works to balance their wants with a set of conditions that will enable those wants."


More gobble-dee-gook. What shit are smoking anyway??

Get this through you thick fuking head....we just can't go around building more highways as more and more people want to live or work in unsustainable areas. It ain't going to happen....so instead of screaming for more highways, when they are just going to make a bad problem worse...you should start becomeing a part of the solution...not the problem.

"whaaaa whaaaa.....I moved out to my subdivision that was designed to make getting a loaf of bread a big drive in my SUV...please build me some more highways so we can accomodate all of us idiots."

It's been many politicians catering to these losers that have caused this problem...time to stop (and it looks like a few politicians are finally seeing the light). Too bad suburban losers like you are still out there....yes dude....it's YOU I blame the most...people just like you are to blame for this mess....I'm not being hard on you for no reason....you deserve it.








"Did you get distracted and read another post?

I admit reading your bullshit...and actually wasting my time responding to it has been trying...but no...I'm am following you quite clearly.






"I said that cities grow outward in a fairly predictable progression. They spread with progressive degrees of density, radiating from more dense centre along transportation routes. "

That predictable progression you speak of has been of the sprawl variety post WW2...now, some areas are clueing in, and densifying. This is not the way it always was, and not the way it will be....so your "predictable progression" idea is just an insight into a few decades of bad planning. Unless you think bad planning is that predictable???...I would agree with you somewhat...I just don't think accepting it is such a great idea.











"Only an aritificially imposed barrier can hasten this urbanization to proceed with higher densities, but this strategy comes at the price of making rents and housing prices rise out of reach of many people."


All planning would fall under the same "artificial" catagory...whether it's sprawl or dense...it's all planned. And you have the odacity to suggest it's smart urban planning that comes with the price...and stupid suburban sprawl doesn't??? You see...it's comments like this that tells me you are just too wacky to even talk sensibly to.

And if anything supports lower incomes...it's the kind of urban planning in Toronto...definetely not in the suburbs. As I suggested to you before, you might try and actually research some demographics a tiny bit (just a little bit...education is a wonderful thing...really...it will at least save you the trouble of making an ass of yourself).

After you do a little bit of this research, why not come back and explain to me why so many low-income people live in Toronto, and not the 905. Higher densities allow for cheaper housing because you build more housing per acre, despite higher land costs...it also allows for sustaining better transit, which allows people who cannot afford personal vehicles to get around to live there. It also provides more municipal revenue to provide better services to people who need it. And all this density allows for more intensive usage of services which benefit in terms of efficiency.










"This hardly addresses the point. Its true that planning trends are somewhat cyclical so certain periods will be attractive to some, other periods attractive to others, so you may inherently dislike post-war planning ideas, but my point was more that this is all done, and that we must still provide for the health of these area as is necessary."


It is the root of the whole point if bad planning is why we have this problem (which it is). And suggesting that the damage is done, and the only solution is to continue to not address it, is just another stupid idea. The "health of the area" does not lie in building more highways....it's fixing the problem at it's root.







"Yes there is no going back. I dont see any examples in Toronto of urban areas reverting to rural use. "

There you go talking nonsense again...nobody is interested in reverting back to rural...we are talking about good urban planning....as in reversing the effects of bad urban planning.







"I do see the development of increasing urbanity in some areas, but thats hardly going back. As I said above, trends are cyclical, but there really isnt any regression of the city."


Yes...we are going back to the sustainable urban planning of the past. It's not a "cyclical" thing at all....we had a period of post-war planning that was a distaster....everyone already acknowledges this...where have you been...driving your SUV to the big box stores all this time????







"I really hope that you are not seriously this close-minded. Toronto is not all good, the 905 is not all bad."


In terms of urban planning?....it sure is that black and white. Mississauga is now the same population of old Toronto. Do you feel there is a difference between the two?







"As a matter of fact, yes I have been there. Taking criticism in this regard from someone who previously commented that he never goes there is rather rich. "

There's nothing there for me...this is not to say I have not been there, or am aware of what is there...or aware of the planning process of the past, present or future. smartass.






"How is Square One in spite of highways?"

Because the dense, mixed-use development going on there supports walkable areas and the kind of densities that promote transit use. People can actually walk from their homes to go shopping, go to a restaurant, see a movie, go to city hall, go to school, visit a park, go to work, go see a play, etc. Imagine that...Mississaugans able to do these things without going to their 3-car garage, starting up the ole SUV, and driving 8000 miles to do these things.


What do you think killed every American city?? Toronto had the good sense to recognize this, and stop it before it did too much damage. What city was actually building subways after the war?...none. Toronto kept it's streetcar network, while every other city was getting rid of theirs....keeping a healthy city is not done by accident...neither is ruining it.







"if I looked at two suburban communities across Steeles from each other, there is no difference other than a political boundary. You seem willing to suport the calls for the people south of steeles for transit, but the ones on the other side of the road made a choice that you argue excludes them from consideration."


As we have already detemined, you have no clue what you are talking about. Normally, I have no patience for people like you (as you can determine already no doubt)...but in the interest of diplomacy, I will give you a few hints as to why what you are saying is idiotic...

I have been travelling on and across Steeles for a very long time....I remember when the south side of Steeles was highrise apartment buildings and the north side were nothing but fields....and no, I'm not that old.

To suggest there is no built-form difference is just plain stupid...to suggest there is no demographic difference is also just plain stupid.

And any development on the north side of Steeles is because of it's proximity to what's south of it...nothing else....if this were not so, then they would still be fields...or mostly suburban housing that it already is.

As far transit and people north of Steeles...well think for a moment....of course they will use it...it's right there...how convenient for them. Who built it...Toronto or Vaughan? Who's efficient transit systems allows it to subsidize good service in areas that aren't so efficient? Who's taxes go to subsidize that ride that the person who lives on the north side of Steeles? The taxpayers of Toronto...that's who.








"These arguments arent new, people said the same thing about Metro, amalgamation of some of the cities in Metro, and then finally the Megacity."


But the creation of the new city of Toronto in 1953 was to address these problems, and a novel compromise to outright annexation. It was also at the hieght of bad city planning, whcih is why the new boroughs was patchy in terms of planning.

Not that that is really what I'm refering to....do you really think the Ont government is comfortable with creating one municipality of 5 million people?

Even if it did, trying to bring the rest of the 905 up to Toronto standards would do nothing but thin the city's resources to the point it would ruin what we already have built. Better to have a healthy Toronto and a recovering 905, then a crappy GTA.







" Would it not be desirable if Mississauga or Vaughan did not so actively compete with Toronto to attract businesses? "


And what makes you think these areas would no longer be competeing??? Landlords in Mississauga are all of a sudden going to stop wanting business???? More stupid comments.










"As for the TTC, it would be much more effective in acheiving the goals that you have for it (to get people to use it rather than a car) if people could access it directly. By grouping all transit in the GTA together, much more can be accomplished by making sure that the entire area is served in the most effective way possible. Can you imagine the number of people that are discouraged from using transit with each additional transfer they must make between their home and their destination? A unified transit system is much better equipped to deal with this than a collection of disjointed systems."


I will say this one more fuking time.....get a clue on how and why the TTC can offer the services it does.

maybe I will try and talk you though this in a way a child could understand it.

If you were to make one transit system in the GTA, and then to give the same service that Toronto enjoys to the 905, would not be feasable. The losses incurred by having to subsidize better service in the 905 would require a dramatic decrease in service in Toronto.

You see...Toronto can subsidize good service in areas that can't really support it, by having other areas that can make up for it....the 905 does not have this...it only has areas which can support weak service. And the TTC could not subsidize the entire 905....either the service on the whole system would be crappy...or the fares would have to be ridiculously high. Even more government money is not going to solve that problem...only better urban planning can....it's time we stopped throwing good money to bad.


Think about that while idling away in your drive-thru Tim Hortons line.






KGB

[DrJoe]

I already did a Toronto one, this one has abit more stuff from both in and out of the city.

400






401













402




403


This stack looks like its pretty damn old.




407 ETR

Electronic toller.









410




417






427





Don Valley Parkway




QEW

To the US






There are many others that I don't have any pics of.

[IchO]

Great work !!! Keep sendin'em

[Zaqattaq]

^ haha LionBlue.com

[DaDvD]

Amazing motorways!! Could you post a map of all them??