Toronto's Massive Highways

[DrJoe]

Some of the largest and most unique highways in the world can be found in Toronto

Highway 400
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/400_cl_29_north.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/gf_curtis/400_cl_23_north_SB.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/400_cl_29_south.jpg

Highway 401

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/gf_curtis/401_cl_rouge_west.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/412509-008.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/401_cl_346_west.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/401_cl_367_west.jpg

http://img166.exs.cx/img166/2018/express4014pq.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/hwy2040120-20Brock20Road20Pickering20looking20west.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/RIMG6642.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/IMG_3071.jpg
407 ETR, World's first all access toll highway

http://www.407etr.com/images/fs_photo/fs_gantry.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/407_centre_ninthline_east.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/fs_aerial2.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/407_centre_brant_west.jpg

http://www.407etr.com/images/fs_photo/fs_snowplows.jpg

http://www.407etr.com/images/fs_photo/fs_aerial1.jpg

Don Valley Parkway

http://img44.exs.cx/img44/7578/PICT8568.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/36939751.jpg

Gardiner Expressway

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/400202-001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/17950447.jpg

427
http://www.onthighways.com/hwy_410-427_images/427_cl_evans_north.jpg


Map of the System
http://mq-mapgend.websys.aol.com/mqmapgend?MQMapGenRequest=FDR2dmwjDE%3byt29%26FDJnci4Jkqj%2cMMCJ%3aHOEvq%3bwba1f1%3a%29z15d6a%3a%26%40%24%3a%26%408%3ag67%3ad67%3aTD%15JFE%3aHOHQJ%3bwb0gyz%3a%29z159yz%3a%26%40%24%3a%26%40%24x9%40

[fredcalif]

I love that place, I have visited the city many times, and everytimes I go there. I am amaze to see those wonderful highways, Only Houston and LA can compete with Toronto

[empersouf]

Nice roads.

[centralized pandemonium]

I love the 401.

[kshatriya]

Amazing!

[sonysnob]

Hello all, I was just curious if the images from www.Onthighways.com could be removed from this list. I am the webmaster. Though I have no problem with images being used in this manner, unfortunatly having them posted at this location has caused me to overuse my bandwidth for the month. I do enjoy sharing pictures with everyone, but I would really appreciate it if links were used to the site instead of showing the images here so that the sites bandwidth can be kept more in check.

Thanks very much!
Scott Steeves

P.S. The 401 does rock

[VAN-TO]

My old horrible commute on Hwy 401 to DVP. (Looking east from DVP) :sleepy:

http://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/hwy401-19_lg.jpg

The same area in 1956: (Looking West, the hill behind is where the DVP interchange was built)
http://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/hwy401-10_lg.jpg

Hwy. 401- Kennedy Road Interchange in 1957
http://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/hwy401-6_lg.jpg
Hoggs Hollow Bridge (near Yonge Street Exit)
http://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/hwy401-17_lg.jpg
Hwy. 401 at Islington
http://www.kingshighway.ca/photos/highway/401/401east_Islington_Toronto_19jan2003_1.jpg
http://www.kingshighway.ca/photos/highway/401/401east_Islington_Toronto_19jan2003_2.jpg
http://www.kingshighway.ca/photos/highway/401/401east_Kennedy_Mississauga_01feb2003_4.JPG
How jammed Toronto's highways can be:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~wkw/pics/photos/toronto1.jpg

[hkskyline]

401 / Don Mills
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/worldphotos/RIMG6648.JPG

[Perth4life3]

does anyone else besides ozzies call them Freeways? a hwy over here is like 2 lanes. a freeway is like 3 or 4.

[Perth4life3]

does anyone else besides ozzies call them Freeways? a hwy over here is like 2 lanes. a freeway is like 3 or 4. plus you use tolls im glad Perth doesnt have them.

[VAN-TO]

All US Interstates are freeways. US Highways are for more localized routes like US395, US50 etc.

[DrJoe]

Hello all, I was just curious if the images from www.Onthighways.com could be removed from this list. I am the webmaster. Though I have no problem with images being used in this manner, unfortunatly having them posted at this location has caused me to overuse my bandwidth for the month. I do enjoy sharing pictures with everyone, but I would really appreciate it if links were used to the site instead of showing the images here so that the sites bandwidth can be kept more in check.

Thanks very much!
Scott Steeves

P.S. The 401 does rock

yeah sorry, i can host them.

[Wezza]

I was unaware Canada used kilometres and not miles!!

[VAN-TO]

Switched around the same time as Australia and rest of the commonwealth.

[Smartboy]

Perfect !!! Amazing !!! It's my dream to know Canada and its highways.
:eek2: :applause: :applause:

[centralized pandemonium]

For me, the most amazing thing is the way they clear it of snow after a huge fall.

[fredcalif]

The more I know about Canada, the more I fall in love with that place.
I am big fan of Highways, and Canada is one of the best for that along with California and Texas

[CrazyCanuck]

Its funny how people say it's there dreams to drive these huge highways, when i can drive the 401 everyday. The massive thing splits my town right down the middle, thats how we define North and south ajax. I guess since i've grown up with it I just take it for granted.

[Perth4life3]

Switched around the same time as Australia and rest of the commonwealth.
nope the poms still use miles.

[sonysnob]

Its funny how people say it's there dreams to drive these huge highways, when i can drive the 401 everyday. The massive thing splits my town right down the middle, thats how we define North and south ajax. I guess since i've grown up with it I just take it for granted.

Funny, as a non-ajax resident, but living in the area. I have always described north ajax as the 'durhams big box', and south, as 'industrial ajax'

Maybe its just me ;)

Scott Steeves

[benji45]

Wierd how in shows like South Park think that Canada's highways are just 1 laned dirt roads. Funny how we have the busiest highway in NA! Pretty funny!

[CrazyCanuck]

I've never noticed it before but you're right sonysnob. Hwy 2 in North Ajax is big box heaven, there used to be nothing along that stretch about ten years ago. South ajax i mostly industrial, but Ajax over all, as I call it,Suburbia at it's finest.

[Canned Kitty]

We seriously need freeways that wide in L.A. Although I think the 5 gets to 16 lanes when it approaches Disneyland, but just a few miles north it bottlenecks into 6 lanes which creates a traffic nightmare.

What is the traffic like on Toronto? Over here it is a catastrophe. 7-10am is rush hour, 10-2pm is pretty much at your own risk and then 2-7pm is rush hour yet again. Pretty much all day.

[VAN-TO]

We seriously need freeways that wide in L.A. Although I think the 5 gets to 16 lanes when it approaches Disneyland, but just a few miles north it bottlenecks into 6 lanes which creates a traffic nightmare.

What is the traffic like on Toronto? Over here it is a catastrophe. 7-10am is rush hour, 10-2pm is pretty much at your own risk and then 2-7pm is rush hour yet again. Pretty much all day.

Except for the weekends, Toronto seems to be as jammed as LA during rush hours: 8-11am, 4-8pm.

Worst are Don Valley Parkway (Don Valley Parking lot), Hwy. 401 at 400 interchange & at airport bottleneck.

[Hillis]

I've never noticed it before but you're right sonysnob. Hwy 2 in North Ajax is big box heaven, there used to be nothing along that stretch about ten years ago. South ajax i mostly industrial, but Ajax over all, as I call it,Suburbia at it's finest.

Yep, the only cool part of Ajax is PICKERING village.

[Wildchild]

Toronto definitely has some of the best Highways in North America.

I always love driving on the 401 when driving into the city and I always purposely drive to get on the Don Valley Parkway(best Expressway I've ever driven on) although best to drive at night.
The Gardiner is a great drive as well, hopefully once that area and strip becomes more developed and dense only then will that drive be even more amusing!! The view of the city entering from the Gardiner is very impressive nonetheless!!!

[GuilhermeC]

Wow these pictures are great. So many cars and lanes... just fantastic
I can't believe that even like that there are so many jams!

[CrazyCanuck]

There are so many jams because suburbia has become like a plague that surrounds the city like the ring on a bathtub.They keep building and building, and the density is terribly weak. I wouldn't be surprised if my town, Ajax, holds the record for most houses, in the least amount of space. For such a small town, its ridiculous.
From the twon of ajax website"Ajax is a mid-sized community of about 67 square kilometres, with a rich heritage and diversity. In 2002, the population is estimated at 78,000 (estimated from the 2001 census figure of 73,753). This is an increase of about 15% since the census in 1996. In 2001 census, there were an estimated 23,642 homes in the town. " That is why there is still traffic jams, even on the worlds biggest highway.
Thanks Hillis, Pickering Village is very nice, too bad I don't live in that part, or any good part of the town for that matter.

[djm19]

We seriously need freeways that wide in L.A. Although I think the 5 gets to 16 lanes when it approaches Disneyland, but just a few miles north it bottlenecks into 6 lanes which creates a traffic nightmare.

What is the traffic like on Toronto? Over here it is a catastrophe. 7-10am is rush hour, 10-2pm is pretty much at your own risk and then 2-7pm is rush hour yet again. Pretty much all day.


The Santa Ana Freeway has 12 lanes. And there is an interchange (I-5/I-405 South) that has 24 lanes

But yeah, they alwaus seem to close them in at 6, and its never enough.

[benji45]

The freeways in LA are so damn confusing.

[Bartolo]

I cant wait for the provincial government to get itz ass in gera and build the 401 C/D to guelph

[Homer J. Simpson]

http://www.kingshighway.ca/photos/highway/401/401east_Islington_Toronto_19jan2003_1.jpg

Weston Road is the next overpass.

The traffic on those highways are friggen insane. I live near Weston RD and the 401 and have NO love for those highways.

[EarlyBird]

If there were roads like that near me I'd be depressed. A huge man-made scar on the landscape. Thank God for public transport!

[Homer J. Simpson]

^Yeah and thank god Toronto has great PT. A member from Toronto once said that the city would need 5 more large highways to handle the traffic that would exist as a result of not having the subway we currently have.

[sonysnob]

I cant wait for the provincial government to get itz ass in gera and build the 401 C/D to guelph

There is absolutely no chance of Hwy 401 being 12-laned westwards from Mississauga in the next 40 or 50 years. The 401/407 interchange was built for a 10 lane (5 per direction) configurating for the 401. The MTO (Ontario's Department of Transportation) has only ever planned a C-D as far west as just west of Mississauga Road in 'sauga.

From what I understand, lane widenings west of the 407 to Milton should be taking place along the 401 in the next 4 or 5 years.

There are many road enthusiasts that would love to see a small C/D from Hwy 8 to Hwy 24 in Cambridge, however, I don't think anyone thinks that is too likely to happen.

Scott Steeves

[Khanabadosh]

wonderful and amazing

[S K Y W A L K E R]

401/don mills

http://img166.exs.cx/img166/2018/express4014pq.jpg

[friendlyneighboor]

FANTABULOUS PICTURE<<<<<<<<<< Deserving of a new thread on its own!!

And say whatever you wish about the Chrysler Towers, I love'em!! The impact they have while driving on the 401 is phenomenal. Wish we would have a night time shot of the exact same vantage point.

[algonquin]

nice thread

[LEAFS FANATIC]

No matter how nice these highways look, it still is not enough to rid Toronto of its insane congestion and rush-hours! I get on the 401 every frigging morning for work at Leslie St. and head west towards the Kipling/Belfield exit (just after the Islington exit). The ride is only 15 kilometers but it takes me one hour whether I take the Express lanes or Collector lanes. It is a friggin joke! No wonder there is so much road rage in this city! There are too many cars!!!

In my opinion we need twenty 401's to get rid of the shit that takes place on a daily basis for millions of drivers in Toronto.

And yes, I have been to LA. They have bad traffic there too, but it pales in comparison to Toronto's 401 and DVP!

[416]

Why are you bitching when you are the cause of the problem?

[LEAFS FANATIC]

How am I the cause of the problem jack ass?

My job requires driving to various clients in Toronto, Mississauga, Markham, Thornhill, Vaughn, etc., all day. Do you suggest that I take the TTC to all my appointments or pay inordinate amounts of money for a cab to drive me to my 8-10 meetings a day?

Yeah, yeah...I know, for tree-hugging hippies like you who know nothing about a hard-days' work, the TTC is great and so is cycling in frigid weather, but for real hard-working individuals like me I rely on an automobile....and for the millions of others who work every day to support your welfare payments through their taxes, they rely on cars too!

NUFF SAID.

[416]

"How am I the cause of the problem jack ass?"

What an utterly dumb question. I'm surprised you had the mental capacity to pass your driving exam.

It's quite simply guy. You drive, thus you contribute to gridlock. Compound your sob story with thousands of others and voila, you have daily gridlock on our highways.

Is that clear enough for ya?

[Roch5220]

No matter how nice these highways look, it still is not enough to rid Toronto of its insane congestion and rush-hours! I get on the 401 every frigging morning for work at Leslie St. and head west towards the Kipling/Belfield exit (just after the Islington exit). The ride is only 15 kilometers but it takes me one hour whether I take the Express lanes or Collector lanes. It is a friggin joke! No wonder there is so much road rage in this city! There are too many cars!!!

In my opinion we need twenty 401's to get rid of the shit that takes place on a daily basis for millions of drivers in Toronto.
!

Actually, we have enough highways. Plus, studies have shown that by adding more highways/lanes, traffic doesn't improve.

The problem lies with transit. I think the 407 should be trucks only, as well as sperated grade lanes on the 400 and 427. Goods should be able to flow throughout the region. If you choose to drive, then you already know the consequences.

[sonysnob]

Actually, we have enough highways. Plus, studies have shown that by adding more highways/lanes, traffic doesn't improve.

The problem lies with transit. I think the 407 should be trucks only, as well as sperated grade lanes on the 400 and 427. Goods should be able to flow throughout the region. If you choose to drive, then you already know the consequences.

Driving is more then just a choice. For many it is the only option for the commute to work, since most people no longer work in the CBD of a city. Transit is a very important part of the solution, but freeways and increased road capacity are also very important.

I was very upset when The Eglinton West subway line in Toronto was canned, and the Sheppard was scaled back. These would have made good additions to the transit network, but wouldn't have fully solved torontos congestion troubles.

Did you know that more people commute out of the Scarborough and into Markham then the other way around? Transit will not be a good solution to this problem because transit is good for bringing passengers from many places to one central place, and not from many places to many places.

Cheers!
Scott Steeves

[Roch5220]

^No, it is a collective choice. If people demand to work downtown, eventually things will change. Such as the marketability of locating in Manhattan vs its surronding boroughs and NJ. It is a business decision that firms make where to locate. It is also a lack of gov't incentives as well re: commericial property taxes. In addition, cause the gov't doesn't fund transit properly, the TTC system still handles ridership patterns from 1988, which isn't uptodate.

[Fabio]

really nice roads.


:okay:

[TRZ]

Did you know that more people commute out of the Scarborough and into Markham then the other way around? Transit will not be a good solution to this problem because transit is good for bringing passengers from many places to one central place, and not from many places to many places.

Cheers!
Scott Steeves
Heard that one before, it is a good point, and Mississauga can also be noted as a strong and growing business city although it doesn't outpower Etobicoke (a bit of a high order yet). However with pulls going east and west at the same time at both rush hours, the situation quickly becomes ridiculous and it won't matter how much more highway space you add - it will be used up and over capacity again once it is constructed and opened. The same happens on railway lines in Asia - Japan Railway East has a very chronic problem with that pattern on certain lines (one sits at 220% capacity despite having 4 tracks to serve it).

I think part of the solution would lie in more application of flex time, but this is a dangerous gamble, because if it becomes popular then traffic will be just be slower all day than it already is, even though the DVP can't get any slower.

There are some exorberantly expensive solutions to some of the problems, and as such they'll never be considered. Transit can't solve it either, although it is a critical pillar to supporting the existing structure of transportation within Toronto limits, and during rush hours; the immediate (and a few select distant) suburbs as well.

What I think the government is being silly is in its reluctancy to even consider the possibility of tolls on the DVP or Gardiner, and possibly the 401 at the collector/express interchanges. The only way to reduce the congestion is to make transit cheaper than driving, and while one could argue that gas does that already, people don't notice the gas costs as much as they'll notice highway toll charges ;). In a country that is supposed to be participating in Kyoto, this is a good move in support of such a program/agenda.

I generally hate highways and really large roadways, usually because they are walled off in large portions and as such act as a barrier as well as being uninteresting to drivers, plus the fact that they don't move through most of non-Sunday daylit time. The drive along the Gardiner is quite nice at night and on a Sunday's dawn. The 401, meh, really, too much asphalt IMO.

[Bartolo]

I'd like to make one point, it is faster to take surrounding roads than it is to use the 401 during rush hour.

[TRZ]

^Yep, more than half the time that is true, but not all the time. Usually only the city people know this tidbit though, Lots of the suburbanites don't know the city apart from their immediate work vicinity, and so are scared to get off the highway.

[VAN-TO]

^True. I find that the streets further South, like Lawrence, St. Clair, are not as jammed as Highway 7, Rutherford, Steeles, Sheppard or Finch. Don Mills/Bayview are by-routes I like to take as an alternative to the DVP.

[Bartolo]

yeah my grandfather and me and my bro were coming from the science centre to milton, and we got on the DVP and then at the next exit north we got off, took us 10 minutes to get from one exit to the other. It took us 90 minutes to get from the OSC to milton, taking the DVP (shortly), Lawrance, keele then the 401

[O Natalense]

:applause: X 1000

[KGB]

"In my opinion we need twenty 401's to get rid of the shit that takes place on a daily basis for millions of drivers in Toronto."


Well, we aren't going to get them...so if you want to avoid the worst traffic, then you have to come up with some other options (like moving closer to work...changing hours)...or just suck it up...ragging on everybody who doesn't drive as your big problem is just stupid.






"I know, for tree-hugging hippies like you who know nothing about a hard-days' work, the TTC is great and so is cycling in frigid weather, but for real hard-working individuals like me I rely on an automobile....and for the millions of others who work every day to support your welfare payments through their taxes, they rely on cars too! "


I'm a little confused here...you hate your fellow cross-town morning drivers, and you hate the people who don't drive too. Sounds like what you really want is your own private highway.

And what's with the bizzaro idea that you are a "hard worker" if you sit in traffic every morning, and a tree-hugging hippy on welfare if you don't?

I'm a little more worried about adults still using phrases like "NUFF SAID".





KGB

[You are to blame]

^ LOL

[hylaride]

If you:
1. Won't move closer to work
2. Won't take public transit (or can't becuase you live somewhere that doesn't have transit that can take you to work)
3. Refuse to get a job closer to work
4. Have a job that requires you to drive a lot

...I find it extremely difficult to feel sorry for anybody in this position. They're doing absolutely nothing to help themsleves, but complain at other drivers or the lack of highways. Building more highways won't help anything, because then more people can drive on them; they'll fill up soon enough. LA, Atlanta, or Houston should be more than enough evidence to show that.

If you cross the city to get to your job, why are you living/working on the other side of the city? Surely when you either moved in one location or got a job in the other you knew what was going to happen. If you've been doing this for years, you've had a lot of time to realize what was happening and deciding to take a change in life.

How much is your time worth to you? Two hours a day wasted. How much do you equivalently make at work an hour? Don't bitch at other people when they offer solutions or to the government when they do nothing (build more roads/transit). Do something to help yourself for once. MOVE OR GET A JOB CLOSER TO HOME. Invent a teleporter. SOMETHING.

[Homer J. Simpson]

^I have far more sympathy for people in that possition than you. Traffic and highways are a fact of life.

Here is my thoughts on your points Chris.

1) In many cases it isn't won't move but can't move. Housing costs and size issues prevent people from moving closer to work all the time.

2) PT is great and I go to great lengths to use it, and I do succeed at it. But for some one who say lives in Rexdale and commutes to NYCC, taking a bus along the north end of the city takes forever. I kid you not that it might take 1:30 hours one way. That makes PT a little less attractive.

For me, instead of blaming a poor sap who is in that possition, I blame upper levels of government for not improving transit for that person.

3) If you have a job of your dreams that you are well settled in and it would be hard if not impossible to find another just like it, you too would be reluctant to change jobs.

4) Cable/Satellite/phone repairmen, electricians, plumbers, realestate agents,....... well many professions require quick hops between sites that are infeesable on PT and are all professions that we need as a society so there is not solution other than a car.

[hylaride]

^I have far more sympathy for people in that possition than you. Traffic and highways are a fact of life.

I never said it wasn't. I said that people in these positions don't do anything for themselves.

Here is my thoughts on your points Chris.

1) In many cases it isn't won't move but can't move. Housing costs and size issues prevent people from moving closer to work all the time.

I'm not telling anybody to move into a condo right next to their downtown work's skyscrapper, though if I personally didn't have kids, I'd do it in a second ;-). But if you're working in Mississauga and living in Ajax, what have you done to yourself? You knew what would happen, having to drive THROUGH the city, when you either moved to one place or got a job in another.

2) PT is great and I go to great lengths to use it, and I do succeed at it. But for some one who say lives in Rexdale and commutes to NYCC, taking a bus along the north end of the city takes forever. I kid you not that it might take 1:30 hours one way. That makes PT a little less attractive.

For me, instead of blaming a poor sap who is in that possition, I blame upper levels of government for not improving transit for that person.

I already covered myself in my point #2. If PT is not available, then obviously everybody else is in the same position. Everybody else is going to drive.

What should the government do? Should they build more highways? Where? Should they level a huge strip of land from one end of the city to another for a new freeway? What about property rights? What happens when that road fills up with traffic? I never said that they should build a huge subway from one suburb to another. People would have to rely on busses to get them right to their location.


3) If you have a job of your dreams that you are well settled in and it would be hard if not impossible to find another just like it, you too would be reluctant to change jobs.

I find it hard to believe that most people commuting accross the city have found the job of their dreams and a house that is any more expensive or perfect than they could find on the other side of the city. If traffic is affecting their quality of life, then they should be at least trying to do something about it.

4) Cable/Satellite/phone repairmen, electricians, plumbers, realestate agents,....... well many professions require quick hops between sites that are infeesable on PT and are all professions that we need as a society so there is not solution other than a car.

These people I have more sympathy for, with the noted fact that this is a cost of business.

Please keep in mind that I don't think we should level every highway in exsistance. I beleive that highways that go INTO cities are a blight, though. The gardiner in Toronto should go away, or at least be burried. Many of the greatest cities in the world get along very fine without them (Paris, NYC, Vancouver, San Francisco). Look what happened to Boston and Detriot after they leveled cities for roads.

[Froster]

Originally posted by hylaride
Please keep in mind that I don't think we should level every highway in exsistance. I beleive that highways that go INTO cities are a blight, though. The gardiner in Toronto should go away, or at least be burried. Many of the greatest cities in the world get along very fine without them (Paris, NYC, Vancouver, San Francisco). Look what happened to Boston and Detriot after they leveled cities for roads.

I dont think this is a very fair comparison. Firstly, Paris is an example of highway building through a city, except that it happened about a century before north american cities. Baron Haussmann raized huge sections of old Paris to build straight, wide avenues and to allow for various public amenities. Secondly, to use the example of New York as a positive I think is also false. New Yorkers suffer with the longest average daily travel time to work in North America, despite having the most developed transit systems.

I would agree that San Francisco is a good example of a city that can cope with its traffic flow, but that is largeley as a result of the decentralization of the bay area with respect to employment and transit.

It is in this regard that Toronto's transit system fails. Public transit in Toronto does not succeed in reducing traffic on the highways because it cannot replace them. The isssue is that many of the largest highways (401, 427, 400, 404, 410, 403) are busy because they allow easy, relatively direct routes to work for the massive number of people who work in the outer suburbs (like Mississauga or Markam) or in the inner suburbs (North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, etc.). Public transit however focuses on downtown, with the subway and GO systems converge on Union Station. The only type of public transit that adequately serves the suburbs are busses, which are far from ideal for most people. Until there is a drive to either construct more highways in the GTA, and focus on improving the emissions and efficiency of the vehicles on those highways, rather than deamonizing the highways themselves, or the federal gov't gets off its pile of cash long enough to build establish a more effective, unified GTA transit system so that the majority of workers can use it, the traffic mess in toronto will never clear up.

[hylaride]

I dont think this is a very fair comparison. Firstly, Paris is an example of highway building through a city, except that it happened about a century before north american cities. Baron Haussmann raized huge sections of old Paris to build straight, wide avenues and to allow for various public amenities. Secondly, to use the example of New York as a positive I think is also false. New Yorkers suffer with the longest average daily travel time to work in North America, despite having the most developed transit systems.

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.

The commute times for NYC also include people from far off suburbs and satellite cities. The suburbs of NYC are very large and cross state lines, and some people go for 2 hours 1 way! People living and working in Manhatten do not have those commute times, neither do people living and working in queens, etc.

I would agree that San Francisco is a good example of a city that can cope with its traffic flow, but that is largeley as a result of the decentralization of the bay area with respect to employment and transit.

This was what I was advocating! I'm for mixed use development! The biggest problem that I see with current development trends in the suburbs is the overly strict separation of commercial and resedential real estate (but keep inustrial separate!). The way they're building now, they have acres of development for houses only, to the point where there are not even corner stores. This creates a very real problem in that it is almost impossible to get a house close to work.

What I do like is the burried highway philosphy. It works very well in the areas around downtown Montreal, without separating the downtown from old montreal! This is what they should do to the gardiner in Toronto.

[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]

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]

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]

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 (http://torontoexpwy.com/LakeshoreCongestion.jpg) 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 (http://torontoexpwy.com/missinglinks22.html) 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]

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).


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).


"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?


"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.


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.


"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.

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.


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).


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]

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.


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.


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.


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)


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)


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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]

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?


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



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.


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."


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