Ahead of the Toronto Transit Commission's efforts to secure CA$6b for its proposed "Transit City" plan, The Globe and Mail is duly repeating the government's fear-mongering party line. "Exhaust pollution kills 440 each year, report finds," the headline trumpets. "Thirty-per-cent drop in traffic would save nearly 200 lives and $900-million in health costs, city's medical officer of health says." So, what else needs saying? The cure: 120 kilometres of new light-rail lines. After sounding a somewhat cautionary note, the Globe doesn't twist the "pollution kills" knife as much as use the report's conclusion to disembowel the rail project's opposition. "Children, too, feel the effects, with an estimated 1,200 cases of acute bronchitis a year caused by traffic pollution. Children are also more likely to suffer from asthma, and the report blames 68,000 'asthma symptom days' each year in Toronto's population on tailpipe emissions. It also found 67,000 'acute respiratory system days,' when people suffer from coughing, wheezing and other symptoms." Clearly, unavoidably, inevitably, something must be done!
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
think of the children!
The main thing I liked about riding mass transit (MARC, Ride-On, Metro) was that I had about an hour or two a day to read books. Other than that, taking the train or subway into DC was just as fraught with irritations and indignities as driving into DC. Finding change for the farecard machines, running to make the next train, scrambling for seats, etc. were generally analogous to the problems that I faced commuting by car. And that was before cell phones.
So while mass transit competes with the automobile industry for tax dollars, I think the better solution is to live close enough to work that you can walk or bike comfortably.
If you had the privilege of watching this item on TV news, you would have seen a wild eyed, bottle lensed ecofanatic attacking carbon emissions and frightening the great unwashed from another direction.
But the objective is the same. Scare everyone into behaving the way “I” think you should. At least the program interviewed another scientist who threw lots of cold water on the data.
So while mass transit competes with the automobile industry for tax dollars, I think the better solution is to live close enough to work that you can walk or bike comfortably.
That is, of course, if you don’t take into account the high crime, substandard schooling, and a cost of housing that’s grossly improportional to the size of the apartment/condo you live in that goes with living in the city.
Pathetic fear mongering.
Soon they’ll probably introduce a Congestion Charge, just like London, to reduce the downtown traffic, which I personally have no problem with. If you travel into a city and clog up the roadways, offering a little backwards-incentive could be the answer.
Of course, then we’d see people start stealing license plates, just like London!
“That is, of course, if you don’t take into account the high crime, substandard schooling, and a cost of housing that’s grossly improportional to the size of the apartment/condo you live in that goes with living in the city.”
Take the cities back. Americans abandoned their cities because it was cheap and convenient to commute to a pristine countryside, or a reasonable facsimile. Commuting, however, will never again be cheap and convenient. Instead of pouring money into exurbs for the wealthy, why not take care of the cities?
Why should we take back any city? Crime and substandard services made it unliveable. Gentrification makes it unaffordable. At least I’m getting my money’s worth in the exurbs.
There was a lengthy article a few weeks ago, I think in New York Magazine, about the background of a surprising new fact: the healthiest place to live in the U.S. is New York City. Yes, NYC has the highest life expectancy.
Reasons why: people in NYC walk more. They eat better. They have better access to medical treatment. Crime is down, and so are typical urban sicknesses such as Aids and TB.
For me, anyway, city life is the only way to go, so I agree with Donal. And anything that makes city life more efficient — such as public transport — is fine by me.
“Why should we take back any city?”
Because I wrote, “live close to work,” and you assumed that work must be in the city. If your work is in the exurbs, by all means live there.
“Crime and substandard services made it unliveable. Gentrification makes it unaffordable.”
I walk five blocks to work and less to shopping, bike to the pool, and don’t even see my car M-F. My rent is about the same as I would pay in an ordinary beltway garden apartment. I’m living very comfortably in the city.
While the presentation is a bit over the top, having seen kids in the ER with asthma on these days needing to get supplemental oxygen, I wouldn’t exactly call it fear mongering.
Perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that driving your car where and when you want imposes a lot of burdens on other people…
Birth is the chief cause of death.
That’s very nice to hear that you’ve found the ideal living arrangement, Donal. Unfortunately for me, if I did the same thing, I’d be paying 6x as much rent for 1/3 of the space I occupy now.
The idea that people should just move closer to where they work is a concept of incredible naivete that it practically begs you to dismiss all other factors when considering a place to live such as the cost of housing, the crime rate, quality of neighbors, quality of schools, quality of local services, property taxes, and a host of other factors. Instead, we’re supposed to have this laser-like focus on ‘how far will I have to commute’ when trying to find a place to live as if this is the only thing that should matter to us. It also fails to take into account the dilemma of having a spouse whose job is nowhere near where yours is, kinda like how my parents’ offices were.
Living within spitting distance of where you work is a nice thing, it really is. So is world peace.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
“Exhaust pollution kills 440 each year, report finds,” the headline trumpets. “Thirty-per-cent drop in traffic would save nearly 200 lives”
Saving only 200 people means you are murdering the other 240! Are the people going to allow greedy Toronto politicians to murder 240 people a year? The only solution is NO pollution, easily achieved by re-adopting the harmonious lifestyle of our stone-age ancestors.
quasimondo: you are correct that “moving closer to work” is oversimplistic (I wouldn’t say incredibly naive) for the reasons you mentioned, as well as the fact that people no longer work for 25 years at the same place. Jobs and careers change, and if you are moving every five years chasing your workplace you’ll drive yourself crazy and likely lose financially.
However, your assertion that we’re supposed to have a “laser-like focus on commute times” is a strawman argument. Nobody is saying that the only consideration in where you live should be your commute. But it does need to be part of the calculation. Unfortunately, massive public subsidization of automotive infrastructure has made automotive commuting so cheap for so long that we’ve sprawled to the point where transit is ineffective.
“Exhaust pollution kills 440 each year, report finds,”
Or maybe people walking up behind them and yelling “BOO” is causing thier death. This statement is so bogus it makes me laugh. How the heck do they know?
The Toronto government needs to make it illegal for the wind to blow since the wind picking up dirt is more “polluting” than an automobile.
The idea that people should just move closer to where they work is a concept of incredible naivete …
The idea that there will always be inexpensive, convenient transportation seems naive to me. Nevertheless we have laid out and built our suburbs, and exurbs, on assumptions that there will always be more personal vehicles, more well-maintained roads and an increasing flow of fuel.
I hope that some of our suburbs can grow into viable satellite cities, but I think there will be a lot of confusion and loss before that happens. I wouldn’t be surprised to see exurbs largely populated by older, retired folk, who will care for their grandchildren while parents crowd into cities to live near their jobs. This is essentially what is happening in large Asian cities now. Maybe that’s why China is building mass-transit at a frantic pace.
“For the children” is a sure sign of a bad idea.
Can anyone tell me a good idea that was sold this way? EVER?
Folks, if you want your kids to live a certain way, then don’t have them until you can ensure that they will. I have nothing to do with how your kids live unless I personally harm them. I don’t ever want to do that. All else is fair game.
However, your assertion that we’re supposed to have a “laser-like focus on commute times” is a strawman argument. Nobody is saying that the only consideration in where you live should be your commute. But it does need to be part of the calculation. Unfortunately, massive public subsidization of automotive infrastructure has made automotive commuting so cheap for so long that we’ve sprawled to the point where transit is ineffective.
But how much of the calculation should it be? The way such an idea was presented here, commuting concerns should triumph all other factors when looking for a place to live. The way such an idea is presented here, it is an incredibly naive concept as if the only people we need to consider in this vacuumous equation is ourselves and nobody else. The way such an idea is presented here, should we decide that the extended commute is worth it to have a backyard for our children and the peace of mind of not being kept awake by loud neighbors, we ought to be punished for this unconscionable sin. How foolish of me to want to have a comfortable place to come home to at the end of a long day.
Landcrusher:
I once saw a t-shirt emblazoned with “Sex – Do it for the children.” That seems like a pretty compelling argument..
What about the next time the TTC or the Go-Train goes on strike? Considering it happens about every 4 months…
“The way such an idea was presented here, commuting concerns should triumph (sic) all other factors when looking for a place to live.
Besides adding disapprobation I never intended, again you’re assuming that the suburbs will always be safer, quieter, etc. than the city. That is why Mr Blandings built his dream house, of course, and that is always how developers have marketed suburban developments. But the realities are changing and while automakers may be slow to react, developers are already creating, or trying to create, desirable neighborhoods downtown.
For the information of our American friends.Toronto council is dominated by the N.D.P party.Canadas far left 3rd party.
Simply put,they hate cars.
The loony left policys, speed bumps,4 way stops no road building,etc has left Toronto into total grid lock 24/7
Cars that don’t move create a hellova lot of smog.
Try explaining that to a car hater.
Besides adding disapprobation I never intended, again you’re assuming that the suburbs will always be safer, quieter, etc. than the city.
That’s because in my experience, they have been safer, quieter, etc. than the city.