Rocco Rossi - "If I'm elected I will Kill Transit City and eliminate Bike Lanes"
- Thread starter james t kirk
- Start date
Agreed, but it's simply not going to happen.
No-one has the cash to pay for a subway at roughly 140 million dollars per km.
The province is broke, the feds are broke, the city is broke. If this was 3 years ago - then yeah, it was at least feasible, however, a 25 billion dollar provincial deficit, a 56 billion dollar federal deficit and probably a 500 million dollar municiple deficit scream noway to a subway.
Perhaps you could post links to these studies that show LRTs to be bad ideas. I've actually read a few Environmental Assesments in my day (more than a few) and I'm not aware of the studies you are quoting. If there is a TTC study, then it will be available online.
If you are refering to St. Claire being a stupid idea, well, I would disagree with your figure of 5 minutes. And for that matter, even 5 minutes can mean thousands of more commuters moved in an hour. In the Transit world - 5 minutes is huge.
One only has to look at the dedicated Street car on Spadina and one can see that it does do what it's supposed to do.
We're missing a vital point in this discussion.
Population density.
Downtown Toronto has the population density to support (barely) a subway.
Once you leave the downtown core, the suburban lifestyle does give the population density, or have enough people in any one area, to support a subway.
Even Sheppard is a waste, they built it hoping that more high rises would be built into the area, but that's wishful thinking.
Subways downtown, LRT where it can be supported and buses for the burbs are what make sense.
Population density.
Downtown Toronto has the population density to support (barely) a subway.
Once you leave the downtown core, the suburban lifestyle does give the population density, or have enough people in any one area, to support a subway.
Even Sheppard is a waste, they built it hoping that more high rises would be built into the area, but that's wishful thinking.
Subways downtown, LRT where it can be supported and buses for the burbs are what make sense.
No. I'm in the 98% majority who either drive, walk or take TTC. Jarvis St is a major N/S thoroughfare. To take that one lane away just increases congestion even more. These idiots at City Hall haven't a clue.
That fifth lane was going to be taken out long before cyclists got involved.
The idea was to reclaim more of the street for pedestrians and plant trees as well, it used to be a beautiful street until it was turned into a thoroughfare.
The bike lanes aren't going to interefere with people who are walking or taking the TTC. I think the goal is to reduce the number of people who drive and replace them with more people who walk, bike, or take the TTC.
How would you feel about restricting Jarvis to TTC vehicles, cabs, and commercial delivery vehicles?
He has my vote on the bike lane issue! Many streets are simply unsuitable for bikes. Parts of Yonge for example. Lansdowne has a bikle painted on a so-called bike lane where there is barely enough room for two cars.
I am also for tolls on cars driving into downtown.
Another thing going for him is that he has never been on city council and never worked for the city. Smitherman was Barbara Hall's chief of staff and then there is that e-health stuff.
I wonder whether Giambone's platform includes letting all other city employees sleep on the job, not just that TTC guy
)
I am also for tolls on cars driving into downtown.
Another thing going for him is that he has never been on city council and never worked for the city. Smitherman was Barbara Hall's chief of staff and then there is that e-health stuff.
I wonder whether Giambone's platform includes letting all other city employees sleep on the job, not just that TTC guy
)I'm with James T. Kirk in this whole transit debate. We desperately need further development of our transit system, but the political will never materialize to actually make it happen.
The St.Clair line was a fiasco from the get-go. The always take far too much time to realize their plans, and then put an outrageous bill to the taxpayers for an underwhelming performance. Nobody apologizes, no one accepts blame for their inability to lay a friggin transit corridor. This isn't rocket science, it's basic engineering. If the awefull TTC ( a truly wretched system) wants to increase ridership, it had better attend to the needs of transit users who demand convenience as well as safety. Who likes to enter those dingy, dirt smeared rat holes that they glorify with the name of 'stations'. The stairwells are often narrow, the stairs slicik with a brine of salt and dirt, the walls filthy.
Another thing is that Toronto doesn't really have a decent processional street or gateway to the city, the way other cities do. I've just spent a little time in Italy, and in some of their little hill towns, they've built these grand streets that lead from the edge of the city into its very heart..all this in the thirteenth century. I mean, what the hell is Yonge street anyway. I do like what they're doing in the Liberty village area near Bathurst street and Front...I hope the city creates more neighbourhoods of a similar nature.
Last but not least, we need more festivals in Toronto. This place can get to be a pretty dreary place in the winter; why can't the city foster some kind of festivals as a way of getting people out of their condos, and mingling a little with their neighbours??
The St.Clair line was a fiasco from the get-go. The always take far too much time to realize their plans, and then put an outrageous bill to the taxpayers for an underwhelming performance. Nobody apologizes, no one accepts blame for their inability to lay a friggin transit corridor. This isn't rocket science, it's basic engineering. If the awefull TTC ( a truly wretched system) wants to increase ridership, it had better attend to the needs of transit users who demand convenience as well as safety. Who likes to enter those dingy, dirt smeared rat holes that they glorify with the name of 'stations'. The stairwells are often narrow, the stairs slicik with a brine of salt and dirt, the walls filthy.
Another thing is that Toronto doesn't really have a decent processional street or gateway to the city, the way other cities do. I've just spent a little time in Italy, and in some of their little hill towns, they've built these grand streets that lead from the edge of the city into its very heart..all this in the thirteenth century. I mean, what the hell is Yonge street anyway. I do like what they're doing in the Liberty village area near Bathurst street and Front...I hope the city creates more neighbourhoods of a similar nature.
Last but not least, we need more festivals in Toronto. This place can get to be a pretty dreary place in the winter; why can't the city foster some kind of festivals as a way of getting people out of their condos, and mingling a little with their neighbours??
Yes it was a beauttiul street back in the 1900's when it housed the city'd elite and most of the public wasn't allowed anywhere near it. But now, aside from the National Ballet, what's there.....A court house, cheap tenenments, hotels and condo's..yes in much need for beautification for the pedestrians that don't walk there anytime the sun goes down.
I guess the hookers, trannies and meth-heads need somewhere new to sleep on; oris it more for a legacy for Kyle Rae to ride off into the sunset on?
I second that. Dupont St. between Lansdowne and Dundas is now a bottle-neck thanks to the bike lane. Actually I take great pleasure yelling at the cyclists who use the sidewalk instead of the bike lane.
Turning 4 lane roads into 2 lane roads in order to have a cycle lane is not a good idea.
Adding a bike lane at the time of road reconstruction by widening the road say 1.2 metres on either side is a GREAT idea. Other than a very few streets that are constrained by buildings, they can easily construct bike lanes.
Adding a bike lane at the time of road reconstruction by widening the road say 1.2 metres on either side is a GREAT idea. Other than a very few streets that are constrained by buildings, they can easily construct bike lanes.
Hey, ever think that for every person on a bike, its one less person in a car. And we can fit way more bikes on a street then cars, so therefore, putting people on bikes makes more room for cars.
If that were true, it would be great.. but a lot of people in bike lanes would be riding their bike, lane or not. People who live in the 905 are not going to ride their bikes downtown to work.
The tracks last for ages, it is the road and the road bed that crumbles to bits and costs millions to rebuild every 5 years or so. Blocking traffic to force people to take a less preferred mode of transportation is a stupid way to direct things. Isn't the motto "The Better Way"? Perhaps it should be the "less crappy way because we made it that way". I have NEVER seen the top layer of concrete last 20 years, that is a fantasy... and as I said they are noisy. Diesel busses need not be the answer. Elevated trains can also work better and would be cheaper then subways.
Fantasy? Really?
I can assure you that TTC never replaces tracks any sooner than 20 years. But hey, you don't have to believe me. Believe the TTC, they claim 30 years. (See Point No. 14)
Reconstruction of the TTC streetcar track network is based on a new design standard and a life cycle approach to replacement. The new tracks will require far less track maintenance over the years and will last approximately 30 years.
http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/involved/transportation/st-clair_construction/pdf/q_and_a.pdf
Link:
they don't replace the track that frequently but the track maintenance is an ongoing issue, grinding and bed repair specifically concrete bed repair in a high salt environment is an ongoing and expenceivee issue.
The big issue with Jarvis and to be blunt with a large number of the bike lanes in Toronto is that the actually purpose is not to increase bicycle use it is to reduce autromobile use by making it difficult if not impossible to get around in Toronto by car. The Eastern Ave bike lane and the JArvis lane serve that purpose.
A transportation plan for the city actually does need to include transit pedestrian and bicycle use , it also has to include the automobile the city and the surrounding areas were designed to be automobile friendly , if not as a requirement. Choking of the automobile access to the city core does nothing for the city beyond advancing the political agendas of the anti automobile crowd.
Business that can not get their deliveries, or their staff to work will move, services will be reduced because teh tax base is reduced .
Getting people onto transit is a wonderful plan, but until the system works, as in moves people at a resonable cost in a reasonable time frame from A to B people with options will not use it.
The big issue with Jarvis and to be blunt with a large number of the bike lanes in Toronto is that the actually purpose is not to increase bicycle use it is to reduce autromobile use by making it difficult if not impossible to get around in Toronto by car. The Eastern Ave bike lane and the JArvis lane serve that purpose.
A transportation plan for the city actually does need to include transit pedestrian and bicycle use , it also has to include the automobile the city and the surrounding areas were designed to be automobile friendly , if not as a requirement. Choking of the automobile access to the city core does nothing for the city beyond advancing the political agendas of the anti automobile crowd.
Business that can not get their deliveries, or their staff to work will move, services will be reduced because teh tax base is reduced .
Getting people onto transit is a wonderful plan, but until the system works, as in moves people at a resonable cost in a reasonable time frame from A to B people with options will not use it.
People are going to cycle anyway, whether there are bike lanes or not. There's nothing the city can do to stop this.
Why not make it safer for them? Why not keep them separated from cars?
Rossi talks about only having them on secondary roads but there isn't a single one that crosses the Don Valley, the 401 or other major impediments. How would they cross the city?
Why not make it safer for them? Why not keep them separated from cars?
Rossi talks about only having them on secondary roads but there isn't a single one that crosses the Don Valley, the 401 or other major impediments. How would they cross the city?
