Thoughts on the intertubes
When I first started blogging, a lot of the ideas that I proposed were influenced by what I read on sites like Urban Toronto and the Canadian Public Transportation Discussion Board. I don't know if the quality of discussion has changed or if I have changed, but I feel that those venues (and others like the official Facebook and Twitter pages for the transit establishments and newspaper article comments) have become filled with comments about how every endeavour to improve transit is an epic failure, a pork barrel project, or a general waste of time and money. Generally speaking, it's quite rare that a viable alternative emerges from this discourse.
As a planner in the digital economy, I'm left wondering what the effects on public consultation will be as it moves online onto these venues where unwavering opposition can drown out other opinions. If my perception of the quality of discourse is accurate, I fear that agencies will become less responsive to the public demands. We must create solutions to the problems we face as a society, but in the absense of constructive criticism, it is likely that the solution will not be implemented at all, or it will be implemented as proposed without changes. The result is no one being happy and everyone being mad at the planning process.
Read more »Labels: comments, politics, urban design
City Loses Heart Lake Appeal - Brampton Guardian
The proposed development at the corner of
Sandalwood and Conestoga in the Heart Lake neighbourhood of Brampton is something
that I've blogged about for a very, very long time. I won't rehash my reasons for supporting the development, but I will provide a recap of the story thus far:
Read more »Labels: comments, urban design
Thoughts on reasonable expectations
Earlier today, the administrator of GO Transit's Facebook page put up a link to advertise their airport services ahead of the long weekend. The comments on the link, however, pointed out that there is no direct bus from Halton or Hamilton to the airport. Apparently, this is an epic fail, according to the commenters. But, is it reasonable to expect that there will be a direct service from any random location in the region to Pearson Airport? From my perspective, in a world with limited budgets and competing priorities, no.
If you want to travel between locations in Halton or Hamilton and Pearson Airport, you're going to have to transfer from the 407 service onto the Brampton Local at Bramalea GO Station. If you're travelling on the weekends, your best bet might be take the train to Long Branch and then take the TTC to the airport via Kipling Station. Yeah, transfers suck, but there is no way that any transit agency can provide a direct service to cover every conceivable trip. At the end of the day, we have to have a reasonable expectation about what sort of service public transit can provide. It may be able to replace 99% of the trips that the average person takes, but is it truly an epic failure if 1% of the trips aren't as smooth?
People love to use the internet to complain. Haters gonna hate and trolls gonna troll. But, wouldn't it be awesome if those same people stood up and said that they would support the revenue tools necessary to fix the problems we have?
Labels: comments, GO Transit
Equal opportunity opinions
Today I received an anonymous comment on my
Heart Lake post which said, and I quote, "Where do you live? I can guarantee everyone it's not Heart Lake!"
After careful consideration, I've decided that I will not, after this post, entertain such comments on my blog. Here's why:
If I were a betting man, my wager would be on the poster telling me that since I don't live in Heart Lake, I don't understand the issues and therefor my opinion is irrelevant. I do not live in Heart Lake, nor have I ever claimed to live in Heart Lake, nor have I ever claimed to represent the community. However, for the last 15 years I have shopped at the majority of businesses in Heart Lake; enjoyed the library, recreation centre / pool, trails and sports fields in Heart Lake; and I have even worked in Heart Lake at the recreation centre. The vast majority of the people I hung out with in high school lived in Heart Lake and many still do. I read the local newspaper, and I even remember when Loafer's Lake had paddle boats you could rent. In addition, I am a graduate of Ryerson University's School of Urban and Regional Planning where I have gained the knowledge to better understand my own community and be able to critically examine modern planning principles. I believe that those aspects of my person qualify me to speak on development issues in Heart Lake.
But, even if all the above was untrue, any informed person should be given the opportunity to speak on any issue and not have their opinion dismissed because they don't live on the right side of an arbitrary boundary. If this were the case, then what gives Brampton City Council, other than the councillors for the area (and perhaps the mayor) the moral authority to make decisions that affect Heart Lake? If only two (local and regional) councillors actually lives here, shouldn't the rest of them just butt out too?
It's okay to respectfully disagree with someone else. However, it is not okay to attempt to marginalize someone because they do not agree with your position. Everyone has something to contribute to the discourse of how we want our communities to develop, and everyone should be heard. So, if you don't like what I have to say then I encourage you to start your own blog or write your elected officials and tell them where you stand on issues. As long as the issues are being discussed, I have done my job.
Labels: comments, Heart Lake, urban design
A rare rebuttal
I don't usually do this, but a letter
appearing in the Star today needs a response:
It is interesting to note that most LRT proponents live along or near subway lines. Their ideology prevents them from reading or understanding studies and reports that clearly spell out the negative impacts on traffic and communities. Communities in the suburbs are designed and behave differently than those in the downtown core. Just because people aren't walking along Sheppard Ave., Catherine Porter asks, "What community?" and suggests we have nothing to save! Porter's article highlights the disconnect between downtown Toronto and its suburbs.
Patricia Sinclair, Save Our Sheppard, Scarborough
First of all, I find it wholely offensive to suggest that those who support Light Rail Transit are making their decision based on ideology, rather than the facts being presented to them. I also find it wholly offensive to suggest that this is downtown ganging up on the suburbs. These comments are completely without basis, and I would expect better from seasoned neighbourhood activists trying to win the hearts and minds of citizens and decision makers in particular.
Secondly, the impact on the transportation network and on communities are positive. The transportation network isn't about moving vehicles - it's about moving people. When you remove transit from traffic then people in vehicles don't have to wait behind buses and people on trams don't have to wait behind vehicles. Everybody wins. When it comes to the impact on the community, there is no evidence that the community will be cut in two. Is the east side of Spadina segregated from the west side? Is the LRT along Queens Quay preventing people on the north side from enjoying the waterfront? The construction phase did cause disruption, but this will be true of any project. There is no basis to suggest that the community will be destroyed by building this project. Look at St. Clair two years from now and you will see it back to its old self, if not better.
Finally, it is true that the suburbs behave differently than the downtown core. However that behaviour contributes to the arguments against building a subway. There are fewer major trip generators, fewer mixed use areas, lower densities and fewer opportunities for intensification. We need to have these things in order to make a subway economically viable, since they cost ten times that of an LRT line. These are not ideological beliefs. These are facts.
Labels: comments, light rail
Let's be constructive for a second
This is a direct response to Joe Clark's comments on a previous post:
I've tried to make this blog a space where critique has been pared with creative ideas. You've critiqued my request for a mobile friendly trip planner (twice), but you haven't done the second part. I know you are more knowledgeable than me on this subject, so how do we get there? How do we create a mobile trip planner that respects human rights?
Labels: comments
It's utterly ridiculous/shameful/absurd...
I'm going to try a social experiment here....
Many times while cruising the internet I come across statements like "It's utterly ridiculous/shameful/absurd that the TTC doesn't offer ______."
It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, as there's usually a good reason why the ____ isn't offered. Perhaps it's far easier to label something as ridiculous/shameful/absurd than to actually take a close look at the reasons why ____ isn't offered and what it will take to make _____ a reality, but don't those with the ability to do the research have an obligation to answer those questions in a forward-looking and informative way?
In order to better inform GTHAers about the state of public transportation, I'm going to start a series of posts called "It's utterly ridiculous/shameful/absurd..." where I'll answer these sort of questions. I'll talk about why that item hasn't been considered yet, what it would take to get it in place, any potential drawbacks and the likelihood of it being considered by policy makers.
Post any of these sort of questions as a comment to this post or send me an email and I'll start hacking away at them in order to demystify transportation issues and hopefully lead to a better tomorrow!
Labels: comments
It's where you live
I live in Caledon. I can say that with some form of authority because the homeowners pay their taxes to the Town of Caledon. When the fire department is called, the truck says "Town of Caledon" on the side. The Caledon detachment of the OPP is our local police force.
Within the town of Caledon, I live in a neighbourhood called Valleywood, a relatively new creation. Historically, this area is just north of a place called Snelgrove. At one time, this place was a hamlet in the Chinguacousy Township, part of Peel County. Today, Snelgrove is a neighbourhood in the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, while Valleywood is a specific development in the Mayfield West planning area of the Town of Caledon, also a part of the Regional Municipality of Peel.
Historical, political and cultural forces have placed different layers on this relatively small geographic area, causing these many changes to take place over the 170-or-so-year European history in the area. All these names and places have different meanings to different people, but they can all be seen as accurate descriptions of the area... or can they?
A while ago, I had a debate with a friend of mine who works at the Canadian Tire at Rutherford Road and Jane Street. We could agree that the store was located in the City of Vaughan, but we could not agree on which historical hamlet it was located in. We narrowed it down to three best choices.
- Maple - Canadian tire calls this store their Maple location, but I believe that this is incorrect. Historically, Maple grew around the railway station at Keele and Major Mackenzie. The location is simply too far from Maple to be considered a part of it.
- Concord - The mailing address of the store is Concord, but this has traditionally referred to the industrial areas to the south and east surrounding the large CN Rail yards. While the railway did not arrive until the 1960s, the area existed as a farming community long before.
- Edgeley - Centered around the intersection of Jane and Highway 7, all that remains is a street bearing its name. The area once had a post office and several mills, but like Maple, is still a fair distance from Rutherford Road.
Maybe all of these locations are correct, or maybe none of these are - but that's not the point. The point is that unless steps are taken to preserve the history of these unique villages, some (like Maple) will grow beyond their boundaries and the name will become diluted. Others (like Edgeley), will be swallowed up, forgotten or re-branded (into Vaughan Corporate Centre).
The Town of Oakville is at this crossroads right now. As it prepares its culture master plan, an issue concerning proposed programming changes at the civic museum has caught my attention. Oakville has grown exponentially in the past 25 years, and there is a need to incorporate the history of the new developments into the museum's programs. But, should this come at the cost of a diminished importance of the historic downtown?
If the town chooses to promote "One Oakville", then the boundaries of the downtown could grow as more developments claim to be located in this desirable neighbourhood. We've seen this in Vaughan, where the borders of Woodbridge and Maple have become almost impossible to define. On the other hand, a "Two Oakvilles" (three once the area north of Dundas develops) policy could result in an adversarial mentality, similar to what we've seen in Toronto after amalgamation. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the historic village and the greater municipality share the same name.
Residents have an opportunity to comment on the culture master plan at town halls and on the
Oakville Town website, but I hope that the plan protects the heritage district and that the museum exhibits reflect its significance. New developments are important, but I believe that civic pride comes from an understanding of the your neighbourhood, its history, and an appreciation of the people who first ventured into the wilderness looking for adventure.
Labels: comments, politics, urban design
What does a little mosque on the prairie and the Toronto Transit Commission have in common?
There was a letter to the editor in the Star today, criticizing a series of CBC print ads for their new show, "Little Mosque on the Prairie."
It feels to me that the CBC is trying to buy a hit with the full-page coloured ad in the Saturday Star declaring Little Mosque. Big Hit. How can this be so after only one showing?
I watched that premiere, only because of the massive publicity it received, and found the plot to be weak and the acting even worse. The CBC would be wise to spend more money on the production and less on propaganda.
Bob Larocque, Toronto
Hey Bob... Does it bother you when a movie is advertised as being "the number one movie in Canada" after only one weekend, or when CTV or Global does the exact same thing CBC is doing right now? Why is it awful when a government agency does something that private companies do every day of the week?
So how does this relate to transit?
There have been several letters to the editor in response to a Star article about the surplus land that the TTC would like to sell off. These letters seem to take the same stance - that it's not appropriate for the TTC to enter the land speculating game, but people like Trump, Tridel and the other big developers can do whatever they want with the land that they own.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to play by the same rules as everyone else.
I suspect that in both cases, the right-wing, anti-CBC and anti-TTC crowd is behind the letters. If the free market capitalism system is the society you want to live in, then won't the market ensure that the commission will get the best price for the land?
Labels: comments, ttc
Comment Roundup
In
Wayfinding, Adeel wrote:
My brother, who lives in Waterloo, refers to the subway lines as green and
yellow and to the parallel Yonge-University lines downtown as 'the U'. I thought
it was unique but I've since heard many others use those terms. It's a good idea,
though I'd keep both. A small part of me, since we're talking, for some jealous
reason prefers an obscurantist approach to public transit, especially the
subway. It makes knowing everything about the subway a little more special.
I think we can have that obscurantist approach by giving the lines creative names. Vancouver has the Expo and Millennium lines, with the Canada and Evergreen Lines under construction. I'm sure a tourist will wonder why the Canada Line only goes to Richmond.
In
This is your brain on drugs, Adeel wrote:
Answer: it's Brampton.
Seems the flower city is renowned for some other herbs...
In
Residents furious with new transit terminal - Brampton Guardian, Dan wrote:
More notice should of been given. Checking Google Earth, only one side of the
planned garage will be along side houses, separated by the OBRY line. One thing
I can see them doing it assigning buses operating on routes west of the 410 to
the Sandalwood garage, whereas the Clark garage will run routes in the
east.
The new garage will definitely improve the efficiency of the system if they split the routes like you've said. Hopefully, we'll see more buses to go along with this new garage, and service increased to match. Brampton tends to screw itself over by letting development occur before the public infrastructure is ready. This is one of those cases where people are critical of the city's shortcomings and critical of its attempts to catch up. Usually I'm against those people, but in this case, Brampton brought it upon themselves.
In
Another DRT update, Sam wrote:
I think DRT rocks...we were told to hold onto our October passes, and now DRT
has come through for us....I'm going to give my 10 ride to my mom as a Christmas
gift. Thanks Durham Region Transit you Rock!
It seems that transit agencies giving free rides after a strike is becoming a theme. The union can't be held responsible for a legal strike, but what about an illegal one?
In
The 96A, Adeel wrote:
Why would anyone bomb the 96? If it's an act of terrorism, it would be using
some strange logic: Toronto, your poor and vulnerable are vulnerable. On the
other hand, an act of terrorism is about the only thing that can ever restore
some semblance of service to that route. I hate taking the 96. It always reminds
me of the scene from Crash when Ludacris' character says o his friend, "you have
no idea why they put them great big windows on the sides of buses, do you?" By
the time I get off at Wilson, I'm incensed that people could be so poor and
incensed at the people themselves for being so abrasive.
Whereas Jennifer loved that movie, I was thoroughly disturbed by it. While the 96 is terrible, I am indifferent to the 165.
In
Ottawa: Council is pissed, Ottawa wrote:
Hi Andrae, Interesting and well informed article (for an out of towner!).
Things here in Ottawa are not quite as bad as they might seem however. First,
John Baird is not so off-base as it might seem. Under the terms of the funding
federal MOU, and the program source of the funds, he had every responsibility to
provide a sober evaluation. Because the city's environmental & transit
business case for the proposed LRT replacement was so weak popular support from the project has plummeted. The final straw was that Mayor Chiarelli had
specifically timed everything so that the presumed rubber stamp from Treasury
Board was due right in the middle of his re-election campaign. No matter what
Baird would have chosen (approve or not) it would be political. In the course of
things, it became clear that Chiarelli had made politically motivated
misrepresentations about contract dates, penalties (not), and the nature of what
work would need to start before spring 2007 (virtually nothing).Second, deep
flaws with the new LRT project and the city's process leading up to the Council
vote to approve have been exposed. Third, a new and much more compelling LRT
alternative plan has come to light. To learn more, have a look at:
http://friendsoftheotrain.blogspot.com/
http://ottawalrt.blogspot.com/
http://saveourgreenspace.blogspot.com/
The voters of Ottawa elected councilors and a mayor who opposed the light rail plan, so change will likely occur. I just hope the citizens aren't stuck with a huge penalty for breach of contract. My main target was the conservatives, who don't seem to care much about the decisions made my Canada's cities.
In
GTA Fare Card, Transit Rider wrote:
Greetings... I remember the fare card project on the Richmond Hill Line, and
nobody could figure out how the thing worked. They'll need to do some education
sessions with their riders to make sure they all know how it works.
Even to this day, I still find myself explaining people how to use VIVA whenever I'm at Finch. Whatever plan we come up with, we need to be able to explain in no more than two steps, and preferably make it rhyme
In
162 Lawrence - Donway: Useless route, or tourist attraction?, Anonymous wrote:
I thought the purpose of the 162 was so that the "help" for all of these rich
families could get to work. Hence the sparse service. The route wouldn't have a
lot of ridership in the middle of the afternoon, but would most likely see more
passengers during "rush hour".
A professor of mine explained that the reason Lawrence Avenue doesn't cut through this neighborhood is due to the collective wallet of the residence. He claims to have witnessed $50,000 being raised in a matter of seconds. But I digress. I think that part of the reason for the low frequency is to keep people out of the neighborhood. This route is a shortcut across the Don Valley, and I'm certain that the collective wallet of the residents can keep the buses out.
In
If you don't use it, you lose it, Anonymous wrote:
i read that the 29 Dufferin was the only route that was used the most in one
day. Now if the TTC had bike racks on 3 of its cross town routes and 3 of its
heavly used north south routes you would see alot more usege. I.e Sheppard West,
Eglinton West, Finch west, the York Universty rocket, Yonge st, Bathurst and
Dufferin. They would get Better Resalts
Shortly after I wrote that post, a motion by Adam Giambrone calling for bike racks on all buses passed. I don't think I can express how much of a positive step such a plan is.
Labels: comments
