Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper
Urbantoronto.ca gets more and more extreme. It wouldn't surprise me if the majority would approve banning cars althogether from the Don River to Bathurst south of Bloor. They also view building a residential subdivision comprising 40 storey towers next to a 905 GO Station (usually in industrial, no mans land ) as progress because it doesn't compute that these communities have real neighbourhoods with things to do for work and play. An expensive commuter rail line into the city is not practical a means for everyday transportation. The definition of TOD is being stretched so thin it almost lost its meaning. I'm saddened so much development potential is now being directed at these subpar, masterplanned, super blocks
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blue
I completely disagree. You say an expensive commuter rail line into the city is not practical as a means for everyday transportation. So let's make it practical damn it. Turning our 9-5 commuter rail system into frequent all-day regional rail makes a ton of sense for this region and that's being achieved with the GO RER/Expansion plans. Head to Paris or any European city with regional rail and you will not find gigantic parking lots or garages near stations.
|
I agree with the idea that large scale developments near commuter rail stations is somewhat less than desirable if the developments aren't also conducive to trips made by walking or local transit. That's the issue here. People make trips to a lot more places than just to work and back and some of these "TODs" just encourage people to take public transit to work downtown and use cars for everything else. Making the commuter rail more frequent is not a solution to that unless the idea is for people to go into the city for everything including grocery shopping, doctor's visits, the park, etc. Life in such a setting may be more sustainable than living just as far out but driving downtown and back every weekday, but that's a really low bar.
On the other hand, one of the main advantages a large metro area has over smaller ones is that people have more options and can access jobs, retail, and services from across the whole region. But that's only possible if it's fairly easy to cross the region. Access to employment opportunities is often cited as a major reason to live in a large metro area, and having access to jobs from across a large region is great. But what if you live with someone such as a spouse/domestic partner and you both manage to find ideal jobs in your respective fields but they're located far apart? You can choose to locate somewhere between them and both have long commutes, or you can live in the same community where one job is located but near the commuter rail station that connects to the other. That's the great thing about the hub and spoke model. As long as one of you works in the hub, the other can take a job in any of the spokes and use the regional transportation system.
In terms of removing cars from downtown, I actually find it more bizarre that such busy and dense areas would allow them to begin with - at least during peak periods. As a transportation option, they just require so much space per person (as most carry an average of around 1.2 passengers) and require so much expensive real estate to store. But making such a transition would need to be predicated on significant transit and active transportation improvements. Obviously the Ontario line (or whatever DRL incarnation gets built) needs to be open, and GO RER need to be completed. And given the inevitable increase in transit modal share, there'd probably need to be another downtown line in addition to that. The elimination of private cars would instantly improve surface transit including the streetcars tremendously, basically giving each route all the benefits of the King policy. The lower traffic volumes would make bike lanes less necessary, but also less controversial which would be useful since there would still be a use case for them given that there would still be lots of non-private vehicles (deliveries, taxis, emergency, and transit etc.) so roads would still be busy. There would also be people granted special permit or exemptions for various reasons.
However, I'm leaning more toward the more conventional "congestion charge" approach. I call it conventional now since it's been implemented by several cities and is a high profile part of planning discourse despite it being equally controversial when first conceived. I like that approach because it offers people a degree of freedom. Like most other aspects of life, you can choose whether to do something or not based on the cost vs perceived utility. Space in the centre of a large city and use of its infrastructure is valuable with many people are competing for it just as with many other goods and services. So you just have to pay the appropriate equilibrium price for it. That way you give people choice, you solve congestion, and you bring in funds to improve the city including upgrades to transit. If you just "ban" the cars, you might save money indirectly by reducing congestion, but directly all you're doing is spending money on enforcement bureaucracy.
Prev
A Comedian from Montreal did poke fun at it, big time.
). <I’m not gonna divulge where I’m from, at least not yet.>
Linear Mode
