Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
Me getting defensive and shadowboxing? I pointed out the high efficiency and existing urban lifestyle of the outer 416 and you respond with a long three-paragraph post and you start to criticize me personally instead of my argument. You also suddenly bring up an argument against "a high capacity underground metro line" and what exactly that is referring to I have no idea.
|
You claimed that the suburban areas were high efficiency and urban which is, a) false in the context of a comparison to the old city, and b) is irrelevant to the topic. The reason I called you out is this gish-gallop of irrelevant statements made to make those places look good when how they look has no bearing on the topic. It was so bizarre that the only explanation I can think of is that you were defensive about suburban areas being criticized or about someone disagreeing in general because that's the only way it makes sense.
And for the record, I most certainly did respond to your "argument". The argument as I interpreted it is that suburbanites are right to feel mistreated or neglected for not having the same urban amenities as those living in an urban setting. I pointed out that they're getting just as much or more value for their tax dollars since their infrastructure costs more per person when you have to spread it over a larger area to serve an equivalent number of people. Therefore, their grievance is not warranted. It's like if two people each give you $100 to do some shopping for them and person A wants you to shop at a much more expensive store than person B. Then person A gets mad when you couldn't buy them as much stuff and claims you showed favouritism toward person B. Well that would be equally silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
I do have a good idea about "relativity", which was exactly what I pointed out that outer 416 is not "suburban" in the same way that other suburbs are. Yes, suburbs can be suburban and urban relative to other suburbs as well. An "average" suburb like Mississauga is nowhere near as urban as North York, but North York has fewer bike lanes. There's no reason for that except "downtown elitism".
|
Ahh... no reason except elitism?? They're in totally different municipalities. Mississauga's budget and timeline for construction of such projects has nothing to do with the city of Toronto's. Perhaps Mississauga is better positioned financially without some of Toronto's budgetary obligations. Or perhaps both cities are doing the exact thing in building bike lanes on say, their busiest 10% of bike routes. If the city of Toronto did that, the bike lanes will be in much denser areas than those in Mississauga. That doesn't mean that Toronto is being unfair, it just means that they're different places (in both look and function).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
Of course, "relativity" demands that cycling facilities be concentrated in the (main) downtown core. However it doesn't demand that places like North York (including its own core) be completely ignored and excluded from the network. In fact, "relativity" demands some inclusion. Because when we speak of relativity", there is more than just 100% and 0%. North York is not 0% urban compared to old Toronto.
|
Since I was already clear in my previous post, I'll just copy and paste it as you seem to have missed the relevant part:
"In the case of bike infrastructure, it simply means that if a city is building a network over time and can't do everything at once, it should focus on the places where it'll get the most use first."
That "first" at the end is very important. It doesn't mean suburban areas wouldn't get any. It just means that more urban areas with higher rates of cycling would get the lanes... first. So while I responded directly to your argument, you responded to an argument I didn't make. I never said suburban areas shouldn't get them at all, hence my shadow-boxing comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
It's the same if we speak about transit. It's not about which place in Toronto gets transit and which places don't. It's about which place in Toronto get more transit than other places. We should not concerned that one part of the city has a higher concentration of bike lanes and other cycling facilities than the rest of city. However, we should be concerned when the rest of the city is completely excluded from the network. This exclusion is what allowed bike lanes to become a divisive issue within the City of Toronto, and now the rest of Ontario could be affected by Toronto's mistake.
|
If you prioritize bike lanes in suburban areas with much lower rates of cycling which would take resources away from places where they'll get more use, people will see the bike lanes getting less use and complain that it's a waste of money. They'll say the money should have been spent on something more practical. And since fewer people would be attracted to cycling, the usage stats would look less impressive and would discourage future investment. Basically it would amount to a token offering to appease the suburban overloads - which wouldn't even work - rather than prioritizing smartly based on actual usage and need. That's why I raised the issue of the DRL. You claimed that their opposition to bikes lanes was mainly because they don't benefit from them, and I pointed out that they also opposed the DRL which they would directly benefit from since suburban commuters are affected by downtown subway congestion. All four major arms of the subway reach into the 416 suburbans and in one case even the 905 and transport many commuters into the central congested areas. So their opposition is misguided.
Prev
Linear Mode
