Toronto Escorts

Toronto traffic is now the worst in North-America

Big John

Well-known member
Sep 19, 2022
299
550
93
I live outside of Toronto but work there. I have taken public transit to get to work for the last 15 years. It is far more efficient and economical than driving for me.
Years ago (many now that I think of it) when I needed to go to the same location each day and travelled light (laptop at most) I too took the Go Train in and walked to the office from Union Station, for example.

I speak of now coming into town with 2-3 destinations to reach, perhaps some equipment with me for installation, or both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shakenbake

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,202
4,219
113
Wow....time flies.

But, again, I recall traffic being pretty fucking bad a year ago. And longer. And, a lot of this construction NEEDS to happen. We don't want overpasses collapsing, like they've done in Montreal....
Rumor is they're trying to squeeze in as much construction work as they can to get things ready for WC2026
 

underground

Active member
May 28, 2010
443
238
43
And they keep adding sets of traffic lights to insignificant intersections ! My route downtown has 12 more sets of lights than it did 15 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: opieshuffle

shakenbake

Senior Turgid Member
Nov 13, 2003
7,804
1,915
113
Durham Region, Den of Iniquity
www.vafanculo.it
Years ago (many now that I think of it) when I needed to go to the same location each day and travelled light (laptop at most) I too took the Go Train in and walked to the office from Union Station, for example.

I speak of now coming into town with 2-3 destinations to reach, perhaps some equipment with me for installation, or both.
Go train initially for me, and now the go bus. Laptop and shopping on the way back. Go has saved me from further cortisol stresses. I had to drive to Mississauga for eight years before that along the 401. Not really fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big John

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,446
3,035
113
We built TORONTO to survive a Huricane after Hazel. The flood plains and green spaces where converted to condos, this is a problem caused by higher flooding, but we would have been fine it where not for excess development. The DVP for example with its swamp is key in flood control. And in fact, the DVP is designed to get flooded, to save the rest of the city it necessary.
Mostly untrue.

Which flood plains and which green spaces were converted to "condos" after "we built Toronto to survive a hurricane after Hazel"?

The DVP is a restricted access roadway and has zero to do with flood control.

The still remaining 'natural' terrain of the Don Valley ravine acts as a funnel and sponge for excess runoff but only to a certain limit. That limit being the unnatural mouth of the Don River, the Keating Channel. The flooding occurs when the Keating Channel is backed up and full of runoff that the water flows back upstream to flood the DVP.

The ongoing re-naturalization of the mouth of the Don River will help alleviate this backup but not solve the Don Valley ravine flooding during major rainstorms. The re-naturalization is being undertaken to flood proof the Port Lands and surrounding areas for development.

What is happening unbeknownst to most is that another massive infrastructure project is being undertaken to stem overflowing runoff into the DV ravine and storing excess storm caused combined sewage/water system over flow into the lake by creating giant tanks and systems within the ravine system and areas to sequester run off until water treatment plant capacity is made available. Don River and Central Waterfront & Connected Projects – City of Toronto

What most do not realize is that Toronto like almost every city in the world has not been built to withstand "once in a century" rainstorms which now occur much more frequently.
 
Last edited:

oral.com

Sapere Aude, Carpe Diem
Jul 21, 2004
905
513
93
Toronto
Stupid leftist city council is directly to blame for city traffic congestion.

Bike lanes on major arteries are unsafe for bikers and take away valuable traffic lanes. Side street bike lanes work fine. University Avenue is a joke! It seems the uber eats cyclist are the heaviest users of these lanes.

CafeTO is a stupid idea whose time is done.

Streetcars are a cutesy bit of nostalgia that is fine for touristy areas, but clog up traffic and make pedestrian access dangerous.
I always cry when a streetcar breaks down resulting in a conga line of cars behind it.

Whose idea was it to let contractors close a whole lane of traffic to build? It’s unnecessary and should be stopped.

The monkey in charge of road construction coordination must be either a nepotism or DEI hire. He/she/they obviously have no clue.

If I was the emperor, these problems would go away. My acolyte Darth Vader would oversee the proper way to manage a city.
 
  • Like
Reactions: underground

escortsxxx

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2004
3,381
904
113
Tdot
Where did you get the above? A source would be very informative as to it's accuracy and bias.

I hope you and others are aware that Olivia left her City of Toronto council seat in 2005 and had no official involvement in City of Toronto council proposals, votes, and decisions nor in advancing policies and plans from the executive office for 18 frickin years.

Thus, she only returned to having any official role in City of Toronto council decisions as mayor in July 2023. That is a gap of 18 years without any influence on Toronto city council or in the mayor's office.

18 years away from the city and now we get the above quoted and other bullshit narratives that somehow in absentia she is to blame for the Gardiner, the Gardiner rehab chaos, traffic congestion, anti-bike lane advocate heads exploding, density, housing, transportation and every other issue that was caused and festered under right-wing mayors and councils, right-wing suburban councilors during her 18 year absence.

Make no mistake, it was right-wing John Tory and right-wing suburban council majorities that voted to proceed with the Gardiner rehab debacle that is causing a large portion of traffic congestion and chaos.

There is so much nonsense in the above quoted post that I do not have time at this moment to address.

The OP is obviously caught up in this nonsense.

For example: The OP is claiming "Dundas 3 million renaming" which in actuality it is less than a third of that. The "soccer game" which is totally and all a John Tory and right-wing council decision.


Either the Mayor stops the buck or we look at history. Oliva position have favored the mess even if she had no social power.

As for facts one third would be 1 million? Where this number from. The actual cost is apprently 12 times that number:

However, the estimated cost to rename Dundas Street is actually $12.7 million, according to city documents. Toronto's city council approved the renaming of Yonge-Dundas Square as well as the renaming of Dundas Station and Dundas West Station back in December, 2023.Feb 5, 2024

now magazine


Further you make her sounds like a private citizen but


  • Member of Parliament (MP): Representing Trinity-Spadina from 2006 to 2014, she advocated for sustainable transportation and environmental issues.
  • Toronto City Councillor: Serving from 1991 to 2005, she championed progressive causes, including transportation and environmental issues.

During this time, she worked with various organizations and capacities, including:

  • The New Democratic Party (NDP): As a member of the NDP, she aligned with the party's progressive values and advocated for sustainable transportation.
  • The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC): Chow served on the TTC board, pushing for improved public transit and reduced car dependency.
  • The Toronto Cycling Committee: She supported and worked with this committee to promote cycling infrastructure and reduce car usage.
  • The Sierra Club Canada: Chow collaborated with environmental organizations like the Sierra Club to highlight the environmental impact of car dependency.
  • The Clean Air Partnership: She worked with this organization to promote sustainable transportation options and reduce air pollution.

In these roles and capacities, Olivia Chow advocated for anti-car positions, pushing for sustainable transportation options and reduced car dependency in Toronto.


As for the FIFA she should have the GUTS now to cancel the thing and reverse course. IT should be her number one priority it will save the city at least 80 miillion and it is rising , FIFA gernally cost much much more than the estimate cost


Historically the cheapest one has been over 1 thousand milllion ie 1 billion
TO stop the cup could save potentially 14 billion dollars (the one in 2018)

  1. 2018 World Cup (Russia)
    • Estimated cost: $10.2 billion
    • Final cost: $14.2 billion
  2. 2014 World Cup (Brazil)
    • Estimated cost: $3.6 billion
    • Final cost: $11.6 billion
  3. 2010 World Cup (South Africa)
    • Estimated cost: $1.8 billion
    • Final cost: $3.5 billion
  4. 2006 World Cup (Germany)
    • Estimated cost: $2.5 billion
    • Final cost: $4.3 billion
  5. 2002 World Cup (Japan/South Korea)
    • Estimated cost: $2.2 billion
    • Final cost: $7.5 billion
  6. 1998 World Cup (France)
    • Estimated cost: $1.3 billion
    • Final cost: $2.7 billion
  7. 1994 World Cup (USA)
    • Estimated cost: $500 million
    • Final cost: $1.2 billion
  8. 1990 World Cup (Italy)
    • Estimated cost: $500 million
    • Final cost: $1.5 billion
  9. 1986 World Cup (Mexico)
    • Estimated cost: $200 million
    • Final cost: $500 million
  10. 1982 World Cup (Spain)
    • Estimated cost: $150 million
    • Final cost: $300 million

.Some report that you get half spend or so back in extra economic activity. In other words if you gave that money away to citizens you'd be better off economically as a city.


NOTE as far I see I am one of the few who back up there arguments with FACTS
 

escortsxxx

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2004
3,381
904
113
Tdot
Mostly untrue.

Which flood plains and which green spaces were converted to "condos" after "we built Toronto to survive a hurricane after Hazel"?

The DVP is a restricted access roadway and has zero to do with flood control.

The still remaining 'natural' terrain of the Don Valley ravine acts as a funnel and sponge for excess runoff but only to a certain limit. That limit being the unnatural mouth of the Don River, the Keating Channel. The flooding occurs when the Keating Channel is backed up and full of runoff that the water flows back upstream to flood the DVP.

The ongoing re-naturalization of the mouth of the Don River will help alleviate this backup but not solve the Don Valley ravine flooding during major rainstorms. The re-naturalization is being undertaken to flood proof the Port Lands and surrounding areas for development.

What is happening unbeknownst to most is that another massive infrastructure project is being undertaken to stem overflowing runoff into the DV ravine and storing excess storm caused combined sewage/water system over flow into the lake by creating giant tanks and systems within the ravine system and areas to sequester run off until water treatment plant capacity is made available.

What most do not realize is that Toronto like almost every city in the world has not been built to withstand "once in a century" rainstorms which now occur much more frequently.
Support with data, I just did so at length for another argument its your turn.


oh shit




Urbanization's Impact on Toronto's Flood Protection System
Urbanization has significantly contributed to the degradation of Toronto's flood protection system:
  1. Impervious Surfaces: Increased urban development has led to a rise in impervious surfaces like pavement, buildings, and roads, which:
    • Reduce groundwater absorption
    • Increase surface runoff
    • Overwhelm stormwater infrastructure
  2. Stormwater Infrastructure Overload: Urbanization has led to an increase in stormwater runoff, causing:
    • Overflows and backups in sewer systems
    • Erosion and damage to waterways
    • Increased risk of flooding
  3. Loss of Natural Buffers: Urbanization has resulted in the destruction of natural buffers like wetlands, forests, and green spaces, which:
    • Once absorbed excess water
    • Filtered out pollutants
    • Regulated water flow
  4. Increased Pollutant Loads: Urbanization has led to increased pollutant loads in waterways, including:
    • Sediment and nutrients from construction sites
    • Chemicals and heavy metals from industrial activities
    • Bacteria and pathogens from combined sewer overflows
  5. Aging Infrastructure: Much of Toronto's stormwater infrastructure is aging and in need of repair or replacement, making it:
    • Less effective at managing stormwater runoff
    • More prone to failures and overflows
  6. Lack of Green Infrastructure: Insufficient green infrastructure, such as green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavements, has:
    • Limited the ability to absorb and filter stormwater runoff
    • Increased the burden on traditional infrastructure
  7. Climate Change: Urbanization has exacerbated the impacts of climate change, including:
    • More frequent and intense storms
    • Rising temperatures and altered precipitation patterns
These factors highlight the need for sustainable urban planning, green infrastructure, and infrastructure upgrades to mitigate the effects of urbanization on Toronto's flood protection system.


  • Impervious Surfaces:
  • "The increased amount of impervious surfaces in urban areas leads to a significant increase in stormwater runoff" (Source: "Urban Stormwater Management" by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change)
  • Stormwater Infrastructure Overload:
  • "The stormwater infrastructure in many urban areas is overwhelmed during heavy rainfall events, leading to combined sewer overflows and flooding" (Source: "Stormwater Management in Urban Areas" by the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering)
  • Loss of Natural Buffers:
  • "The destruction of natural buffers such as wetlands and forests has reduced the ability of urban areas to absorb and filter stormwater runoff" (Source: "The Importance of Natural Buffers in Urban Stormwater Management" by the Journal of Environmental Engineering)
  • Increased Pollutant Loads:
  • "Urbanization has led to increased pollutant loads in waterways, including sediment, nutrients, and bacteria" (Source: "Pollutant Loads in Urban Stormwater Runoff" by the Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management)
  • Aging Infrastructure:
  • "Much of the stormwater infrastructure in urban areas is aging and in need of repair or replacement" (Source: "Aging Infrastructure: A Challenge for Urban Stormwater Management" by the American Society of Civil Engineers)
  • Lack of Green Infrastructure:
  • "The lack of green infrastructure in urban areas has limited the ability to absorb and filter stormwater runoff" (Source: "Green Infrastructure for Urban Stormwater Management" by the Environmental Protection Agency)
  • Climate Change:
  • "Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including heavy rainfall and flooding" (Source: "Climate Change and Urban Stormwater Management" by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)


MORE





Toronto's Water Protection Infrastructure After Hurricane Hazel
After the devastating effects of Hurricane Hazel in 1954, Toronto implemented various measures to protect against future flooding ¹ ²:
  • Flood Control Channels: Large dams and flood control channels were proposed and developed to regulate water flow and prevent flooding.
  • Erosion Control Programs: Erosion control programs were initiated to stabilize riverbanks and prevent soil erosion.
  • Land Acquisition: Over 7,200 acres of land were identified for acquisition to create floodways and buffer zones.
  • Flood Plain Regulations: New provincial flood plain regulations were developed to restrict development in flood-prone areas.
  • Gauging Stations: Gauging stations were set up to monitor water levels and provide early warnings for potential flooding.
  • Rainfall Observer Network: A rainfall observer network was established to track precipitation levels and alert authorities to potential flooding.
  • Conservation Authorities: Conservation authorities were given more responsibility for managing watersheds and implementing flood protection measures.
While these measures were implemented to protect against flooding, some areas have been neglected or abandoned over time
  • Lack of Maintenance: Some flood control infrastructure has not been properly maintained, leading to reduced effectiveness.
  • Urbanization: Continued urbanization has led to increased runoff and pressure on flood control systems.
  • Climate Change: Climate change has resulted in more frequent and intense storms, putting additional pressure on flood protection infrastructure.
These factors highlight the need for ongoing investment and maintenance in Toronto's water protection infrastructure to ensure the city remains resilient against flooding.


 

oral.com

Sapere Aude, Carpe Diem
Jul 21, 2004
905
513
93
Toronto
New punishment for drivers:
Fines increased for 123 parking infarctions
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,446
3,035
113
Either the Mayor stops the buck or we look at history. Oliva position have favored the mess even if she had no social power.

As for facts one third would be 1 million? Where this number from. The actual cost is apprently 12 times that number:

However, the estimated cost to rename Dundas Street is actually $12.7 million, according to city documents. Toronto's city council approved the renaming of Yonge-Dundas Square as well as the renaming of Dundas Station and Dundas West Station back in December, 2023.Feb 5, 2024

now magazine


Further you make her sounds like a private citizen but


  • Member of Parliament (MP): Representing Trinity-Spadina from 2006 to 2014, she advocated for sustainable transportation and environmental issues.
  • Toronto City Councillor: Serving from 1991 to 2005, she championed progressive causes, including transportation and environmental issues.

During this time, she worked with various organizations and capacities, including:

  • The New Democratic Party (NDP): As a member of the NDP, she aligned with the party's progressive values and advocated for sustainable transportation.
  • The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC): Chow served on the TTC board, pushing for improved public transit and reduced car dependency.
  • The Toronto Cycling Committee: She supported and worked with this committee to promote cycling infrastructure and reduce car usage.
  • The Sierra Club Canada: Chow collaborated with environmental organizations like the Sierra Club to highlight the environmental impact of car dependency.
  • The Clean Air Partnership: She worked with this organization to promote sustainable transportation options and reduce air pollution.

In these roles and capacities, Olivia Chow advocated for anti-car positions, pushing for sustainable transportation options and reduced car dependency in Toronto.


As for the FIFA she should have the GUTS now to cancel the thing and reverse course. IT should be her number one priority it will save the city at least 80 miillion and it is rising , FIFA gernally cost much much more than the estimate cost


Historically the cheapest one has been over 1 thousand milllion ie 1 billion
TO stop the cup could save potentially 14 billion dollars (the one in 2018)

  1. 2018 World Cup (Russia)
    • Estimated cost: $10.2 billion
    • Final cost: $14.2 billion
  2. 2014 World Cup (Brazil)
    • Estimated cost: $3.6 billion
    • Final cost: $11.6 billion
  3. 2010 World Cup (South Africa)
    • Estimated cost: $1.8 billion
    • Final cost: $3.5 billion
  4. 2006 World Cup (Germany)
    • Estimated cost: $2.5 billion
    • Final cost: $4.3 billion
  5. 2002 World Cup (Japan/South Korea)
    • Estimated cost: $2.2 billion
    • Final cost: $7.5 billion
  6. 1998 World Cup (France)
    • Estimated cost: $1.3 billion
    • Final cost: $2.7 billion
  7. 1994 World Cup (USA)
    • Estimated cost: $500 million
    • Final cost: $1.2 billion
  8. 1990 World Cup (Italy)
    • Estimated cost: $500 million
    • Final cost: $1.5 billion
  9. 1986 World Cup (Mexico)
    • Estimated cost: $200 million
    • Final cost: $500 million
  10. 1982 World Cup (Spain)
    • Estimated cost: $150 million
    • Final cost: $300 million

.Some report that you get half spend or so back in extra economic activity. In other words if you gave that money away to citizens you'd be better off economically as a city.


NOTE as far I see I am one of the few who back up there arguments with FACTS
WTF?

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about because you are ONLY reinforcing my rebuttal to your post of biased nonsenses and falsehoods.

1) Dundas St. is not being renamed as your above quoted nonsense claims. Yonge-Dundas Sq, is being renamed, not Dundas St. Budgeted cost for the CIty of Toronto is about $800K. Dundas subway station renaming will be paid for by TMU. Sheesh. Be informed for God's sake with up-to-date facts.

2) You can copy and paste a mountain of facts about Olivia Chow's career but NONE, I repeat NONE that state that she was involved in any official, council or executive capacity when the decisions were finalized, voted on, budgeted for, RFP'd, and contracted for. NONE. She just was not there in that capacity from 2005-2023 when all this was finalized for a) Gardiner rehab b) the eastern end of the Gardiner realignment c) the 2022 John Tory RFP and budgeted for the current rehab of the Gardiner between Dufferin St. and Strachan which is causing this congestion on the Gardiner now talked about d) 2026 FIFA World Cup which was a total John Tory pet project that saddled the city with contracts that if not met, means hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and damages will have to paid be for by the taxpayers of Toronto. He actually went ahead with the FIFA bid without securing any provincial or federal matching dollars FFFS. And even those stats you copied and pasted were for a full slate of games. Toronto will be hosting I believe just 6 games which is proposed to cost about $400 million. Still this is all John Tory's doing.

Here's the thing, you do not know what you're talking about. You have a predetermined outlook and mindset formed by bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SchlongConery

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,446
3,035
113
Support with data, I just did so at length for another argument its your turn.


oh shit




Urbanization's Impact on Toronto's Flood Protection System
Urbanization has significantly contributed to the degradation of Toronto's flood protection system:
  1. Impervious Surfaces: Increased urban development has led to a rise in impervious surfaces like pavement, buildings, and roads, which:
    • Reduce groundwater absorption
    • Increase surface runoff
    • Overwhelm stormwater infrastructure
  2. Stormwater Infrastructure Overload: Urbanization has led to an increase in stormwater runoff, causing:
    • Overflows and backups in sewer systems
    • Erosion and damage to waterways
    • Increased risk of flooding
  3. Loss of Natural Buffers: Urbanization has resulted in the destruction of natural buffers like wetlands, forests, and green spaces, which:
    • Once absorbed excess water
    • Filtered out pollutants
    • Regulated water flow
  4. Increased Pollutant Loads: Urbanization has led to increased pollutant loads in waterways, including:
    • Sediment and nutrients from construction sites
    • Chemicals and heavy metals from industrial activities
    • Bacteria and pathogens from combined sewer overflows
  5. Aging Infrastructure: Much of Toronto's stormwater infrastructure is aging and in need of repair or replacement, making it:
    • Less effective at managing stormwater runoff
    • More prone to failures and overflows
  6. Lack of Green Infrastructure: Insufficient green infrastructure, such as green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavements, has:
    • Limited the ability to absorb and filter stormwater runoff
    • Increased the burden on traditional infrastructure
  7. Climate Change: Urbanization has exacerbated the impacts of climate change, including:
    • More frequent and intense storms
    • Rising temperatures and altered precipitation patterns
These factors highlight the need for sustainable urban planning, green infrastructure, and infrastructure upgrades to mitigate the effects of urbanization on Toronto's flood protection system.


  • Impervious Surfaces:
  • "The increased amount of impervious surfaces in urban areas leads to a significant increase in stormwater runoff" (Source: "Urban Stormwater Management" by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change)
  • Stormwater Infrastructure Overload:
  • "The stormwater infrastructure in many urban areas is overwhelmed during heavy rainfall events, leading to combined sewer overflows and flooding" (Source: "Stormwater Management in Urban Areas" by the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering)
  • Loss of Natural Buffers:
  • "The destruction of natural buffers such as wetlands and forests has reduced the ability of urban areas to absorb and filter stormwater runoff" (Source: "The Importance of Natural Buffers in Urban Stormwater Management" by the Journal of Environmental Engineering)
  • Increased Pollutant Loads:
  • "Urbanization has led to increased pollutant loads in waterways, including sediment, nutrients, and bacteria" (Source: "Pollutant Loads in Urban Stormwater Runoff" by the Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management)
  • Aging Infrastructure:
  • "Much of the stormwater infrastructure in urban areas is aging and in need of repair or replacement" (Source: "Aging Infrastructure: A Challenge for Urban Stormwater Management" by the American Society of Civil Engineers)
  • Lack of Green Infrastructure:
  • "The lack of green infrastructure in urban areas has limited the ability to absorb and filter stormwater runoff" (Source: "Green Infrastructure for Urban Stormwater Management" by the Environmental Protection Agency)
  • Climate Change:
  • "Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including heavy rainfall and flooding" (Source: "Climate Change and Urban Stormwater Management" by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)


MORE





Toronto's Water Protection Infrastructure After Hurricane Hazel
After the devastating effects of Hurricane Hazel in 1954, Toronto implemented various measures to protect against future flooding ¹ ²:
  • Flood Control Channels: Large dams and flood control channels were proposed and developed to regulate water flow and prevent flooding.
  • Erosion Control Programs: Erosion control programs were initiated to stabilize riverbanks and prevent soil erosion.
  • Land Acquisition: Over 7,200 acres of land were identified for acquisition to create floodways and buffer zones.
  • Flood Plain Regulations: New provincial flood plain regulations were developed to restrict development in flood-prone areas.
  • Gauging Stations: Gauging stations were set up to monitor water levels and provide early warnings for potential flooding.
  • Rainfall Observer Network: A rainfall observer network was established to track precipitation levels and alert authorities to potential flooding.
  • Conservation Authorities: Conservation authorities were given more responsibility for managing watersheds and implementing flood protection measures.
While these measures were implemented to protect against flooding, some areas have been neglected or abandoned over time
  • Lack of Maintenance: Some flood control infrastructure has not been properly maintained, leading to reduced effectiveness.
  • Urbanization: Continued urbanization has led to increased runoff and pressure on flood control systems.
  • Climate Change: Climate change has resulted in more frequent and intense storms, putting additional pressure on flood protection infrastructure.
These factors highlight the need for ongoing investment and maintenance in Toronto's water protection infrastructure to ensure the city remains resilient against flooding.


Again, with a dump of copy and paste which states the obvious with nothing new or revealing. AND definitely does not state as you claimed in your original post, " The flood plains and green spaces where converted to condos, this is a problem caused by higher flooding, but we would have been fine it where not for excess development."

Which flood plains and green spaces were converted to condos? Name them, point them out.

As I stated before, you have predetermined outlook and mindset formed by bias.

Oh, and btw, show us, point out, "all the green spaces on the north side of the Gardiner" that were converted to condos". You make it sound as if that area was a garden of Eden, a green oasis. Show us.
 

escortsxxx

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2004
3,381
904
113
Tdot
Again, with a dump of copy and paste which states the obvious with nothing new or revealing. AND definitely does not state as you claimed in your original post, " The flood plains and green spaces where converted to condos, this is a problem caused by higher flooding, but we would have been fine it where not for excess development."

Which flood plains and green spaces were converted to condos? Name them, point them out.

As I stated before, you have predetermined outlook and mindset formed by bias.

Oh, and btw, show us, point out, "all the green spaces on the north side of the Gardiner" that were converted to condos". You make it sound as if that area was a garden of Eden, a green oasis. Show us.

I realize I jumped to the conclusion you where trolling so assuming your not


I've noticed that you're asking for proof, but not accepting the evidence I've provided so far. To better understand what would change your mind, could you please specify what you consider adequate proof or what specific aspects of the topic you're unsure about? This will help me provide more targeted information and address your concerns effectively."
Some possible rewordings to choose from:

  • "Can you clarify what kind of evidence would be convincing for you?"
  • "What specific concerns or doubts do you have that I can address?"
  • "Could you outline what you consider a credible source or convincing argument?"
  • "What would it take for you to reconsider your current stance?"
  • "Can you provide more context or details about what's driving your skepticism?"



Harsh version (for Trolls)


Read the data, read the reports, you can not read what before your eyes. Prove a counter case. This is ridiculous your just someone who refuses to look at data and insist on others doing your homework and holding your hand. .


I can suggest some ways for you to find the information you're looking for:

  • Check online maps and databases, such as the City of Toronto's official website or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) website, for information on flood plains and green spaces in Toronto.
  • Look for reports and studies on urbanization and development in Toronto, which may identify areas where flood plains and green spaces have been converted to condos.
  • Consult with local environmental groups, community organizations, or urban planning experts who may have knowledge about specific areas in Toronto where flood plains and green spaces have been developed.

Some areas in Toronto that have seen significant development and urbanization in recent years include:

  • The Waterfront area, where former industrial lands have been redeveloped into condos and mixed-use buildings.
  • The West Don Lands, a former industrial area that has been redeveloped into a mixed-use neighborhood with condos, parks, and community facilities.
  • The Port Lands, a large area of former industrial and natural habitats that is being redeveloped into a mixed-use neighborhood with condos, parks, and community facilities.

Please note that these are just examples, and I would recommend further research to get a more accurate and up-to-date picture of the specific areas you're interested in.


Question why do you doubt this fact? Are you a flat earth advorcate or 6000 year no dino person or something? Ever green space helps mitigate flooding. Less green spaces equal more chance of flooding, simple rule.

PS related



Meanwhile, new Toronto lakefront condominium developments are proceeding in the Quayside and Portlands neighbourhoods, near the Islands, on flood plains historically contaminated by heavy metals, oil and coal. “Workforce housing” is a required part of the plan.


Will Flessig, former Waterfront Toronto CEO, says that middle-income professionals are expected to settle in the waterfront condominiums so that they can be closer to where they work.


But no one in Toronto is talking about the flood plains, since elected officials apparently consider the issue resolved. Based on a plan developed in 2007, the federal and provincial governments are investing $1.185 billion to reconstruct the mouth of the Don River so that the water safely flows into Lake Ontario.


However, the waterfront area still remains a flood plain, and is still affected by storm surges associated with climate change.


Building on flood plains has serious consequences, including future uninsurable buildings as insurance companies anticipate they won’t be able to afford the payouts. A single major flood causes a great deal of damage and requires insurance companies to pay all at once. With a higher frequency of catastrophic floods and the corresponding required payouts, the pool of insurance premiums collected to cover the losses dries up, and insurance companies face bankruptcy.


Before that happens and buildings are left derelict, people and property are endangered. We recently saw life-threatening flooding of buildings in Toronto, and there are limited rescue personnel to address all of the issues at the same time when mass floods happen.


Simultaneously, damage to personal property can be overwhelming — for example, to cars and contents within condominium lockers in underground parking garages. In Toronto, we have also seen streetcars submerged in water recently with people trapped inside.


Fixing the damage therefore adds costs to public transit. Water quality and disease concerns are also heightened as storm sewage systems cannot handle increasing rainfall volumes. Over the longer term, repeated flooding also weakens building foundations.

Hard to manage water levels

On a broader scale in the Great Lakes region, the ability to adapt to changing conditions is reduced. That’s because the ability of water officials to manage water levels is much more difficult when condominiums and other housing is built on flood plains.


For example, water flows are somewhat controlled in the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River watersheds through an international agreement called Plan 2014. If buildings are in the path of water flow, this complicates and limits the range of adjustment options.


We know now what we’re confronting. Let’s learn from past mistakes. In the best interests of homeowners, the public and climate adaptation, what’s left of Toronto’s waterfront should be public parks, not condominiums billed as “workforce housing.”


Meanwhile, new Toronto lakefront condominium developments are proceeding in the Quayside and Portlands neighbourhoods, near the Islands, on flood plains historically contaminated by heavy metals, oil and coal. “Workforce housing” is a required part of the plan.


Will Flessig, former Waterfront Toronto CEO, says that middle-income professionals are expected to settle in the waterfront condominiums so that they can be closer to where they work.


But no one in Toronto is talking about the flood plains, since elected officials apparently consider the issue resolved. Based on a plan developed in 2007, the federal and provincial governments are investing $1.185 billion to reconstruct the mouth of the Don River so that the water safely flows into Lake Ontario.


However, the waterfront area still remains a flood plain, and is still affected by storm surges associated with climate change.


Building on flood plains has serious consequences, including future uninsurable buildings as insurance companies anticipate they won’t be able to afford the payouts. A single major flood causes a great deal of damage and requires insurance companies to pay all at once. With a higher frequency of catastrophic floods and the corresponding required payouts, the pool of insurance premiums collected to cover the losses dries up, and insurance companies face bankruptcy.


Before that happens and buildings are left derelict, people and property are endangered. We recently saw life-threatening flooding of buildings in Toronto, and there are limited rescue personnel to address all of the issues at the same time when mass floods happen.


Simultaneously, damage to personal property can be overwhelming — for example, to cars and contents within condominium lockers in underground parking garages. In Toronto, we have also seen streetcars submerged in water recently with people trapped inside.


Fixing the damage therefore adds costs to public transit. Water quality and disease concerns are also heightened as storm sewage systems cannot handle increasing rainfall volumes. Over the longer term, repeated flooding also weakens building foundations.

Hard to manage water levels

On a broader scale in the Great Lakes region, the ability to adapt to changing conditions is reduced. That’s because the ability of water officials to manage water levels is much more difficult when condominiums and other housing is built on flood plains.


For example, water flows are somewhat controlled in the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River watersheds through an international agreement called Plan 2014. If buildings are in the path of water flow, this complicates and limits the range of adjustment options.


We know now what we’re confronting. Let’s learn from past mistakes. In the best interests of homeowners, the public and climate adaptation, what’s left of Toronto’s waterfront should be public parks, not condominiums billed as “workforce housing.”


Meanwhile, new Toronto lakefront condominium developments are proceeding in the Quayside and Portlands neighbourhoods, near the Islands, on flood plains historically contaminated by heavy metals, oil and coal. “Workforce housing” is a required part of the plan.


Will Flessig, former Waterfront Toronto CEO, says that middle-income professionals are expected to settle in the waterfront condominiums so that they can be closer to where they work.


But no one in Toronto is talking about the flood plains, since elected officials apparently consider the issue resolved. Based on a plan developed in 2007, the federal and provincial governments are investing $1.185 billion to reconstruct the mouth of the Don River so that the water safely flows into Lake Ontario.


However, the waterfront area still remains a flood plain, and is still affected by storm surges associated with climate change.


Building on flood plains has serious consequences, including future uninsurable buildings as insurance companies anticipate they won’t be able to afford the payouts. A single major flood causes a great deal of damage and requires insurance companies to pay all at once. With a higher frequency of catastrophic floods and the corresponding required payouts, the pool of insurance premiums collected to cover the losses dries up, and insurance companies face bankruptcy.


Before that happens and buildings are left derelict, people and property are endangered. We recently saw life-threatening flooding of buildings in Toronto, and there are limited rescue personnel to address all of the issues at the same time when mass floods happen.


Simultaneously, damage to personal property can be overwhelming — for example, to cars and contents within condominium lockers in underground parking garages. In Toronto, we have also seen streetcars submerged in water recently with people trapped inside.


Fixing the damage therefore adds costs to public transit. Water quality and disease concerns are also heightened as storm sewage systems cannot handle increasing rainfall volumes. Over the longer term, repeated flooding also weakens building foundations.

Hard to manage water levels

On a broader scale in the Great Lakes region, the ability to adapt to changing conditions is reduced. That’s because the ability of water officials to manage water levels is much more difficult when condominiums and other housing is built on flood plains.


For example, water flows are somewhat controlled in the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River watersheds through an international agreement called Plan 2014. If buildings are in the path of water flow, this complicates and limits the range of adjustment options.


We know now what we’re confronting. Let’s learn from past mistakes. In the best interests of homeowners, the public and climate adaptation, what’s left of Toronto’s waterfront should be public parks, not condominiums billed as “workforce housing.”

Meanwhile, new Toronto lakefront condominium developments are proceeding in the Quayside and Portlands neighbourhoods, near the Islands, on flood plains historically contaminated by heavy metals, oil and coal. “Workforce housing” is a required part of the plan.


Will Flessig, former Waterfront Toronto CEO, says that middle-income professionals are expected to settle in the waterfront condominiums so that they can be closer to where they work.


But no one in Toronto is talking about the flood plains, since elected officials apparently consider the issue resolved. Based on a plan developed in 2007, the federal and provincial governments are investing $1.185 billion to reconstruct the mouth of the Don River so that the water safely flows into Lake Ontario.


However, the waterfront area still remains a flood plain, and is still affected by storm surges associated with climate change.


Building on flood plains has serious consequences, including future uninsurable buildings as insurance companies anticipate they won’t be able to afford the payouts. A single major flood causes a great deal of damage and requires insurance companies to pay all at once. With a higher frequency of catastrophic floods and the corresponding required payouts, the pool of insurance premiums collected to cover the losses dries up, and insurance companies face bankruptcy.


Before that happens and buildings are left derelict, people and property are endangered. We recently saw life-threatening flooding of buildings in Toronto, and there are limited rescue personnel to address all of the issues at the same time when mass floods happen.


Simultaneously, damage to personal property can be overwhelming — for example, to cars and contents within condominium lockers in underground parking garages. In Toronto, we have also seen streetcars submerged in water recently with people trapped inside.


Fixing the damage therefore adds costs to public transit. Water quality and disease concerns are also heightened as storm sewage systems cannot handle increasing rainfall volumes. Over the longer term, repeated flooding also weakens building foundations.

Hard to manage water levels

On a broader scale in the Great Lakes region, the ability to adapt to changing conditions is reduced. That’s because the ability of water officials to manage water levels is much more difficult when condominiums and other housing is built on flood plains.


For example, water flows are somewhat controlled in the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River watersheds through an international agreement called Plan 2014. If buildings are in the path of water flow, this complicates and limits the range of adjustment options.


We know now what we’re confronting. Let’s learn from past mistakes. In the best interests of homeowners, the public and climate adaptation, what’s left of Toronto’s waterfront should be public parks, not condominiums billed as “workforce housing.”
 
Last edited:

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
12,618
5,997
113
@Anbarandy knows what he is talking about. I mentioned the massive stormwater surge tunnels and tanks already in service and under contruction in this (and/or other) threads and yet the fucking know-nothing, know-it-allls keep spewing about how the city isn't doing anything etc. When it IS!

As is the Don Valley flooding issue. I also posted YouTube videos on the new wetlands being created and the river mouth, Keating Channel etc being engineered in a massive civil works project that actually seems to be well run.

Same with the talk of glorious greenspace where the very well planned, designed and efficiently built Cityplace neighbourhood sits today. Bullshit. It was railway yards, delapidated buildings on contaminated soil. DENSE impermeable 'soil' that is actually the clay and rock excavation spoils from the subway, high rise basements etc etc.

No sense in even engaging with wilfully ignorant politically-lizard-brained Karens who really don't know fuck all about what they are complaining about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joweeejojo

glamphotographer

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2011
16,711
16,550
113
Canada
What is the best way to move a mass amount of people? Reliable public transit system. Not cars, if they build more highways it leads to more traffic jams, it's called induced demand. Trudeau spent billions on improving infrastructure but needs to spend more, the Conservatives won't be spending a dime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SchlongConery
Toronto Escorts