Downtown-Wide 'Transportation Study' Planned by City

[Danielinthecity]

Don't worry daniel i don't take anything personal. I'm a montrealer living in Toronto, i've gotten enough jabs from friends back home lol.

Here's an interesting article about what's taking place in europe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

"While American cities are synchronizing green lights to improve traffic flow and offering apps to help drivers find parking, many European cities are doing the opposite: creating environments openly hostile to cars. The methods vary, but the mission is clear — to make car use expensive and just plain miserable enough to tilt drivers toward more environmentally friendly modes of transportation."

Anyways, i didn't mean to offend Joe nor Mapleson with any of my comments.
The issue i have with this whole transit debate is that neither Toronto nor the surrounding municipalities seem to be willing to do anything to solve this.

Thanks for both articles, Thanos...funny about the first one...I 'too' posted it in one of my posts!

Imagine had we suggested some of 'those' measures!

 

[Danielinthecity]

Here's another article many of you would find interesting.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/110715/toronto-traffic-public-transportation-cars

"Toronto’s population is growing at near Asian rates, but infrastructure is being built to support this population growth at less than North American rates†— a damning thought indeed when compared to what Asian and European countries invest in infrastructure."

That's a great article in that it so concisely expresses what mountains of studies have been saying for decades and what many have been trying to tell suburbanites for ever and what they just don't get.

Sadly, like I said in a previous post, the days of reckoning are coming whether they like it or not (or whether they're prepared for it or not)...I just hope maybe a 'few' minds have been changed out there.

...I guess we'll see in a few months with the provincial election and in a few years with the next City election. Not sure if you know or not, but if you've read many of the suburbanite master plans, many of them are extolling what we've been talking about...their actions don't always match it, but there is at least 'more' of an emphasis on reducing car dependancy than many years ago, so even if some of the suburbanites on this forum (and others) don't get it, it seems at least on paper that many of their voted councillors do...sad that Toronto's own inner suburban councillors dont!

 

[BMO]

I don't disagree with you...I never said I was in favour of either (1) punishing drivers or (2) of reducing capacity. I'm not...especially when a viable alternative isn't given. And I never said anything about tearing down highways, so I'm not sure why you're saying that?? I do believe that though that by focussing our investments on transit instead of roads, capacity WOULD increase on the existing roads simply b/c more transit means less cars which means more space and less congestion for those people that still have to drive.




Yes, we can agree on this...I believe in expansion EVERYWHERE, but I also believe the type of expansion should fit the urban model.




And once again, I never said anything about taking away capacity from drivers...I just don't believe that increasing road capacity is the answer.



My approach - like Transit City - would make it easier for you to go ALL THE WAY downtown without having to drive. Again, it's a focus on transit, and it's a region-wide focus.




As for our debate about transit subsidies, you make some interesting points...but I still maintain that transit routes that serve high density urban places do subsidize the other parts of the system that serve lower density places. It's all about costs versus revenue.

But I'm too busy right now though to thoroughly debate it, so if you're patient - and you even want - we can revisit that in the future. But I think you're partially agreeing when you mention the modal split b/c think you're saying that higher density places have higher transit usage. If you're saying that, you're right. Which is part of my arguement about the subsidy part, but as I said for another time. If you're not saying that, please clarify.

And since many have automatically taken my support of focussing on TRANSIT instead of facilitating driving to mean that I want to punish drivers, here's an interesting article via my LinkIn account that relates directly to 'punishing' drivers and the environment and congestion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?pagewanted=all

Ok I think we're on the same page, or atleast have an understanding between us on each others points. I think we both started off kind of responding in very extreme positions even if we didn't really quite mean to come off that way. I agree that the current suburban model isn't sustainable and that ultimately a shift away from the car should be sought out, and that this doesn't mean to totally get rid of the car(because people will always want to be able to drive), but that it means providing alternative that are both efficient and attractive, and are not inferior to car travel.

 

[Chuck]

I agree. But I don't agree with making driving easier.

Well if driving, cycling, transit, and walking all see equal improvements in travel times, then technically driving (or any other mode) would be favoured no more or less than it is today.

The ever increasing cost of gas, parking, and insurance, plus the completion of several transit megaprojects will do more than enough to get people out of their cars. Therefore, I once again ask you why we shouldn't strive to get as much capacity out of our roads as possible? The easier it becomes to travel to and within the downtown area, the more desirable downtown will become to live and to work.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Ok I think we're on the same page, or atleast have an understanding between us on each others points. I think we both started off kind of responding in very extreme positions even if we didn't really quite mean to come off that way. I agree that the current suburban model isn't sustainable and that ultimately a shift away from the car should be sought out, and that this doesn't mean to totally get rid of the car(because people will always want to be able to drive), but that it means providing alternative that are both efficient and attractive, and are not inferior to car travel.

Yup, that's about it! And you're right about the initial extreme positions too...sometimes the internet/email is great, but sometimes...man, it can really perpetuate miscommunication/misunderstandings...

...I applaud us for seeking to genuinly understand each other's position rather than simply railroad our positions on the other...

 

[Danielinthecity]

Well if driving, cycling, transit, and walking all see equal improvements in travel times, then technically driving (or any other mode) would be favoured no more or less than it is today.

The ever increasing cost of gas, parking, and insurance, plus the completion of several transit megaprojects will do more than enough to get people out of their cars. Therefore, I once again ask you why we shouldn't strive to get as much capacity out of our roads as possible? The easier it becomes to travel to and within the downtown area, the more desirable downtown will become to live and to work.

I already thought I had put this issue to bed, but maybe not...so sure...I'll explain myself again, but can you tell me where I said that I don't believe in getting as much capacity out of our roads as possible? In fact I do. My approach in doing so though is to gradually shift drivers onto transit (by their own choice b/c it's easier/cheaper/better for them), thereby INCREASING the existing current road capacity. So in a nutshell current capacity will be increased through fewer drivers (cause they'd now be on transit). What I don't agree with is increasing capactiy in a WAY that will increase the number of cars on the roads. Hence why I don't believe that our PRIORITY should be in faciliating driving.

Why?

(1) B/c cars cause pollution. 40% of carbon dioxide emissions come from the tailpipe...the more cars on the road, the more fuel you consume, the more fuel you burn the more carbon dioxide you emit...I don't like carbon dioxide!. Even todays cleaner cars STILL producer CO2.

(2) Congestion will inevitably return (even if we somehow manage to cram MORE cars on the current infrastructure).

(3) We've already tried these methods before and they don't work (and we know it).

(4) Not everyone can afford a car, so basing your transportation system mainly around a mode that's out of reach for many - or forces them to drive (b/c they have little alternative) which causes financial strains is not the direction we should be going. We shouldn't burden society this way by making them 'have to' own a car to live.

(5) Cars perpetuate suburban sprawl which further perpetuates 'car only' options for mobility

(6) Sprawl consumes too much land

(7) Sprawl is ugly (ever go into someone's house or a restaurant to see a picture of a mall surrounded by parking? I bet not, but I bet you've seen plenty of pictures of beautiful 'urban' streetcapes)

(8) Sprawl and car mobility reduces public interaction and chance encounters, which I believe are important to reducing stereotypes, racism, etc. (there's a study in the states that showed a discernable relationship between proximity to others and voting tendancies...those that live close to others tended to support more social programs where those that lived far away tended to support 'individualistic' policies, and I believe in 'community' first).

(9) Making transit a 'Priority' OVER driving ensures those areas of society that REALLY have no choice but to drive (e.g. commercial transport, ambulance, sales workers that need to drive to clients, farmers, workers in industrial parks (although I think this can be improved a bit through better design), etc.)

There's more, but I'm at work! I'm geting pulled into this too much...

...this is a quick glimpse...there's TONS of studies out there that show helping drivers STAY in their cars in not good for society...myself and another poster already posted a couple articles...

 

[Electrify]

(1) B/c cars cause pollution. 40% of carbon dioxide emissions come from the tailpipe...the more cars on the road, the more fuel you consume, the more fuel you burn the more carbon dioxide you emit...I don't like carbon dioxide!. Even todays cleaner cars STILL producer CO2.

Meanwhile, idling cars pollute more than cars which constantly moving at a steady and smooth pace.

(2) Congestion will inevitably return (even if we somehow manage to cram MORE cars on the current infrastructure).

In a central core of a growing urban area, agreed. But if we don't look to ways to improve all forms of transportation within reason, then all modes will suffer.

(3) We've already tried these methods before and they don't work (and we know it).

Elaborate. I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

(4) Not everyone can afford a car, so basing your transportation system mainly around a mode that's out of reach for many - or forces them to drive (b/c they have little alternative) which causes financial strains is not the direction we should be going. We shouldn't burden society this way by making them 'have to' own a car to live.

Agreed. This doesn't mean we should go out of our way to penalize drivers though.

(5) Cars perpetuate suburban sprawl which further perpetuates 'car only' options for mobility

Agreed, with reservation. Cars are part of the problem, but I would not say they are 100% of the problem.

(6) Sprawl consumes too much land

No argument there.

(7) Sprawl is ugly (ever go into someone's house or a restaurant to see a picture of a mall surrounded by parking? I bet not, but I bet you've seen plenty of pictures of beautiful 'urban' streetcapes)

I've seen a few, but mostly of historic reasons. Ugliness is also in the eyes of the beholder: I've seen well designed suburban neighbourhoods which look far more pleasant than run-down urban areas.

(8) Sprawl and car mobility reduces public interaction and chance encounters, which I believe are important to reducing stereotypes, racism, etc. (there's a study in the states that showed a discernable relationship between proximity to others and voting tendancies...those that live close to others tended to support more social programs where those that lived far away tended to support 'individualistic' policies, and I believe in 'community' first).

Interesting, yet hardly concrete. I'd wager that a poor public education system and institutionalized ignorance which has infected many rural and red state regions plays a far greater role.

(9) Making transit a 'Priority' OVER driving ensures those areas of society that REALLY have no choice but to drive (e.g. commercial transport, ambulance, sales workers that need to drive to clients, farmers, workers in industrial parks (although I think this can be improved a bit through better design), etc.)

I'm going to use this as a launch pad for what I was initially going to post. I have no problems removing a lane and designating its use for other means, but that decision must be based on usage and travel patterns and not ideology. Jarvis is a great example: Sherbourne with its bike lanes are only a block away, and most of the use of Jarvis is by cars for longer distance transportation. If the bike lanes on Sherbourne were at maximum capacity, and/or there was a significant volume of cyclists using Jarvis, then removing a lane for cyclists would make sense. As it stands though, this move was based more on ideology rather than sound planning.

While not part of my suggestion earlier, making King and Queen one way and giving streetcars their own ROW would probably make sense, since the vast majority of their use is by transit for local trips while most auto traffic uses Richmond and Adelaide.

 

[Palma]

For the millionth time: IT'S NOT A TORONTO ISSUE. IT'S A REGIONAL ISSUE. They all need to cooperate and work together. Something that is happening in the rest of Canada.
And whatever transit improvements that Vaughan, Mississauga and the rest have done has been negated by their continuous sprawl.
And why should there be a subway extension to the suburbs that have no density before a DRL? Why are other cities using LRT and regional trains for the suburbs while we have to use the most expensive form of transit. Subways do not belong in the suburbs.



Seriously the suburbs have been taking a free ride.

.

I could not agree more on both points

 

[unimaginative2]

Well...it may be anecdotal but I've lived in Europe (Berlin) and I've got to say that driving there is way easier than here. Obviously every city and country is different but outside of the medieval cores, many cities have wide boulevards with roundabouts and relatively infrequent signals. They also don't do as much to keep cars off "side" streets. Pretty much every European city also has ample on-street parking. I didn't have a car in Berlin but I rented one a couple times and I've got to say that driving there was usually way easier than here.

 

[gweed123]

Well...it may be anecdotal but I've lived in Europe (Berlin) and I've got to say that driving there is way easier than here. Obviously every city and country is different but outside of the medieval cores, many cities have wide boulevards with roundabouts and relatively infrequent signals. They also don't do as much to keep cars off "side" streets. Pretty much every European city also has ample on-street parking. I didn't have a car in Berlin but I rented one a couple times and I've got to say that driving there was usually way easier than here.

Really? I found driving in Berlin to be a huge pain in the ass. Outside of the main boulevards, the streets were barely wide enough to have 2 compact cars pass eachother. Even the non-boulevard mainstreets were very narrow with cars parked everywhere. I much prefer driving in North America, even in downtowns. At least here you know that your car will fit down the road if there's a car coming in the other direction .

 

[BMO]

Response to our thread?

Article from Spacing Toronto about car congestion.

Mercifully, Toronto has so far been spared the smog days which have defined summers of the past. This respite from smog days however belies the true condition of the air we breathe and the toll that air pollution takes on each and every one of us. Air pollution and the broader category of public health have long been the great equalizer in debates over public policy. Modern urban planning emerged out of the needs to address common public health concerns. Rich or poor, cyclist or driver we all breath the same air; a simple fact that may be one of the most powerful arguments against investing in increased automobile capacity.

Talk of pollution from personal automobiles often focuses on carbon dioxide and its role in climate change, yet just as tangible are the effects that other emissions from cars are having on our bodies. Air pollution has been linked to increased mortality, respiratory illness, impaired cardiovascular functions and an increased risk of cancer*. A 2010 study out of Harvard University estimated that emissions from vehicles idling in congestion resulted in 3000 premature deaths in the United States in 2005. While new technology is reducing emissions, these gains are being offset by dramatic increases in the amount total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a measure of the total amount of distance driven by all vehicles.

We all know that cars pollute, but we don’t remind ourselves often enough about just what is coming out of a tailpipe and how direct its impacts can be on our health. The pollutants that have been attributed to tail pipe emissions include carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), air toxins such as benzene and formaldehyde, as well as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), which combine to form ozone*. Environment Canada estimates that passenger vehicles account for approximately 51% of VOC emissions and 21% of NOx emissions in Canada.

The link between emissions from personal vehicles and these health effects has been well established. A study conducted during the Atlanta Olympics illustrates this perfectly. In preparation for the crowds, officials closed the downtown to cars and instituted alternative transportation. The resulting 22% decrease in peak hour morning traffic lead to a 13% decrease in ozone levels and a decrease in acute asthma measures of up to 44%.

Despite the hard science, the most powerful facet of the public health argument against policies like removing bike lanes on Jarvis in favour of new lanes for cars is the universality of the negative effects of increased vehicle emissions. Vehicle emissions don’t just harm nearby pedestrians, they equally hurt those living and working in nearby buildings as well as the drivers inside the cars themselves. As others have pointed out, the idea of ‘the war on the car’ is bunk; its inherent divisions between drivers and other groups such as cyclists and pedestrians don't really exist. Drivers stand to benefit from alternative transportation options just as much as everyone else.

Opponents will argue that creating more lanes for cars is necessary to reduce air pollution because it reduces congestion. This argument is tragically misguided. As Tom Vanderbilt aptly pointed out in the New York Times this month, the car is doomed by its exponentially diminishing collective returns. Each new car that hits the road makes the entire system slightly worse for everyone by contributing to greater traffic jams and more pollution. Investing in more traffic capacity will only perpetuate this exponentially growing cycle.

Another fundamental flaw in the argument for increasing road capacity is the well documented phenomenon of induced demand. More road capacity leads to more cars and provides no overall gain in reducing congestion. A recent study by economists at the University of Toronto adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating this by drawing a clear link between road capacity and levels of traffic. The study even goes so far as to propose the equation +1 = +1 meaning that a 1% increase in road capacity will lead to a 1% increase in the amount of traffic. We cannot pave our way out of congestion.

The case for reducing the capacity of roads in the downtown core crystallizes when considered from a regional perspective. As a region sprawls outward and commuting distances increase, the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rises dramatically, pushing up air pollution. In order to curb VMT growth, cities must reduce how far people have to drive by increasing density, improving access to transit and promoting employment close to where people live. Toronto has been very successful in at least one of these areas by increasing density and mixed use in its downtown core. Yet the public health catch in this equation is that increasing density brings increased traffic and congestion to the downtown, exposing the growing numbers of people who live there to the increasingly poisonous effects of vehicle emissions. Because of this, increases in downtown density must be accompanied by a shift away from automobile capacity or public health will suffer. More density in downtown must be accompanied by a shift towards alternative means of transit.

Wasting precious infrastructure dollars on additional lanes of traffic is therefore unequivocally a step in the wrong direction. As downtown Toronto continues to flourish with new residential density we must shift the transportation modal split or we will only expose larger numbers to higher concentrations of air pollution. Each time we decide to saddle ourselves deeper with more autocentric infrastructure, we move backwards at the peril of our health and wellbeing.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Meanwhile, idling cars pollute more than cars which constantly moving at a steady and smooth pace.

Right...so less drivers (b/c of a policy that prioritiezes transit) = less congestion = less pollution.

In a central core of a growing urban area, agreed. But if we don't look to ways to improve all forms of transportation within reason, then all modes will suffer.

Disagree...

...instead slowly gradually transform the suburbs into transit friendly places and connect them to the 'regional' transit network...

(3) We've already tried these methods before and they don't work (and we know it).

Elaborate. I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

See the post of the article from spacing magazine.

Agreed. This doesn't mean we should go out of our way to penalize drivers though.

God...why does this keep coming up!? I never said that!!

Agreed, with reservation. Cars are part of the problem, but I would not say they are 100% of the problem.

If not sprawl and cars, then what's the source of the problem?

I've seen a few, but mostly of historic reasons. Ugliness is also in the eyes of the beholder: I've seen well designed suburban neighbourhoods which look far more pleasant than run-down urban areas.

I should have been more specific then...I find nothing aesthetically redeeming about a parking lot, a mall, wide pedestrian hostile intersections, empty streets, strip malls. Yes, I'll admit some older suburban neighborhoods with beautiful homes and gigantic trees and manicured greenery can be nice to look at. And I've often thought...geez, if only they could 'walk' to a main street (with a subway stop) just as manicured and pretty, then this might not be so bad.

Interesting, yet hardly concrete. I'd wager that a poor public education system and institutionalized ignorance which has infected many rural and red state regions plays a far greater role.

I never said they were the ONLY factors...I said, "Sprawl and car mobility reduces public interaction and chance encounters, which I believe are important to reducing stereotypes, racism, etc."

I'm going to use this as a launch pad for what I was initially going to post. I have no problems removing a lane and designating its use for other means, but that decision must be based on usage and travel patterns and not ideology. Jarvis is a great example: Sherbourne with its bike lanes are only a block away, and most of the use of Jarvis is by cars for longer distance transportation. If the bike lanes on Sherbourne were at maximum capacity, and/or there was a significant volume of cyclists using Jarvis, then removing a lane for cyclists would make sense. As it stands though, this move was based more on ideology rather than sound planning.

While not part of my suggestion earlier, making King and Queen one way and giving streetcars their own ROW would probably make sense, since the vast majority of their use is by transit for local trips while most auto traffic uses Richmond and Adelaide.

Again see the post from spacing, but if you want to make a case against NOT basing policy on ideology, then I suggest contacting fords office.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Article from Spacing Toronto about car congestion.

Thank you.

 

[Mapleson]

Again, i'm not arguing against the part in bold. And if you must know i am attached and have moved on 3 occasions for better opportunities and as recently as a few months ago when i came to Toronto. The argument i'm trying to make is by reducing the demand for our road space by providing a more comprehensive transit plan for the whole region. Any road adjustments should be solely for the purpose of transit (ie: dedicated bus lanes, LRT, etc.)

I can agree for the most part with what you are saying, I just try to stay away from extremist positions for reality sake. Priortity should be given to self-transport (foot, bike) and then mass-transport over single-occupancy-vehicle-transport, but I think there is value in things like 'HOV lanes' over a 'bus lane'. When you neglect the self-perceived 'needs' of one usergroup, they tend to develop resentment and scrap your whole plan.

Again, i never argued against this. However, it seems that people didn't learn their lesson from the Harris days and now we have Ford. I also barely hear any discussion in the provincial elections regarding long term transit funding. I only hear people complaining about taxes and fees.

That's the thing many people actually supported Harris and still do. They have a different world view and unless you meet them on terms they support (like transit saves money building less roads), they will just dismiss your point of view as "out in left field". Transit funding isn't an election issue this year. We have a deficit, so no one is coming out with new spending to win votes, likewise no one is coming out with axes chopping to lose votes either. The Liberals will "stay the course" that saw Transit City go from $12B to $8B. The Conservatives will "spend $35B on infrastructure" in their first term, but that included roads and buildings. They'd also spread the gas tax around and make it for transportation-related projects not just transit-related.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...special-report-corporate-campuses-in-twilight
Do some of your own research. A quick look up on google shows dozens of articles regarding companies in major US markets leaving the burbs to move back downtown. LA has far worse traffic then Toronto can even begin to imagine and corporations are starting to relocate to more central locations.

Dozens of companies move every year. That's a newspaper column, not scientific research. If you look at his chart, there isn't any significant net change is downtown Chicago employment over the last 30 years, only the suburban employment is peaking.

My argument is for all municipalities to sit together and come up with a more sustainable source of funding for the WHOLE REGION. It's true that saying Toronto's concern should be on it's own residents is not the right way of solving this issue. This is what i'm getting at: the responsibility does not fall solely on the city of Toronto.

We tried that a couple of times, such as the Greater Toronto Servicing Board. It didn't work, so the Liberals are now trying Metrolinx to watch over regional transit. They have a Investment Strategy report due in 2013 that is looking at all the funding sources and trying to get deticated, sustainable funding.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/funding/investment_strategy.aspx
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/funding/MetrolinxDraftIS-web (3).pdf

Anyways, i didn't mean to offend Joe nor Mapleson with any of my comments.
The issue i have with this whole transit debate is that neither Toronto nor the surrounding municipalities seem to be willing to do anything to solve this.

I'm not offended at all. I don't think Toronto et al. aren't willing to try to solve it, just that the scope of the problem spans more than any one generation of politicians (4-5 years) can fix.

NO it doesn't mean that. That's ludicrous. Does not wanting to make eating junkfood easier mean I'm defacto punishing fat kids?

Does not wanting to make eatting easier mean you are punishing starving kids? You have a negative connotation assoicated with driving that is counter-productive. I want to shirk the proportion of single-occupancy vehicles in our transportation mix as well. I just see it as more movements remaining as a necessity even after the commutter chaos dies down. Over the next 25 years, the GTA is expected to have 3 million new residents. Let's say the transit use doubled from 23% to 46%, while car use fell from 71% to 48%. That means just as many people would be using cars as today, while three times as many people were using transit.

So if people take their car cause it's easier, why not help them with alternatives that are JUST as easy? Why just perpetuate something we know is not good for the environement? And by the way, I DO think their lifestyle choice is no longer acceptable and that's why I'd like to encourage them to change it by giving them alternatives, and over time even the suburbs will densify and become more urban.

I am with you 100% here. We should continue the shift to livable communities. It still won't eliminate the need for the car though.

Remember our lifestyle choices all have impacts. There's a difference between intent and impact. I don't think most people INTEND to harm the environment or be part of the congestion problem, but the reality is that they are...
...the question we should be asking ourselves is why is there pollution, congestion, etc? Who's responsible for it if not us! And what can we do not that's different than what we've BEEN doing that's gotten us into this mess in the first place (i.e. STOP 1950's style planning AROUND the car, and instead focus on pedestrain oriented development and transit expansion).

You could get rid of pollution by banning the combustion engine. It is a seperate, but related issue that needs it's own focus. If you are burning coal to power your electric car, it's not really a zero emission vehicle.

To do nothing just b/c some people don't like it is irresponsible.

To do something that most people don't like is undemocratic. No system is perfect, so in the end some group always loses out. If you undertake a transformation in such a way as to galvanize sufficient opposition, they will tear down your great works. I don't deny that we need to reform. I just wish to go about it in such a way as to provide the maximum benefit to the widest possible audience.

In case you missed it, you might be interested in this old report.
http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/uploads/Reducing_Car_Dependence.pdf

 

[Electrify]

@Mapleson

I think a bus lane over an HOV lane makes sense in terms of a network situation. If it is playing part of a role of a frequent bus rapid transit route (ex: Dufferin between Sheppard and Finch for the 196), then it is a great way to give the bus its own right-of-way without building a new road and/or implementing expensive grade separation. However, if you are going to remove or convert an HOV lane to a bus lane and run service infrequently, then that is counter-productive.

@Danielinthecity

To be honest, I don't believe that road widening is the end-all and be-all of traffic congestion. If widening a road means it will be more congested, then we should see grid lock at off-peak periods as well. It also means that if 401 was 6 lanes like it is outside the GTA, it would still run just as smoothly as it does in rural areas.

The real culprit in terms of gridlock is population growth. In many cases, road widenings come hand in hand with new developments, so when the roads naturally become more heavily used anti-car zealots like to claim that by making the road wider, it encourages more people to drive. This counter-argument essentially puts the cause of gridlock into a chicken vs. egg discussion. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE SOLUTION TO TORONTO'S TRAFFIC WOES IS TO WIDEN ALL STREETS! For this to work, you would have to make city streets 12 lanes wide and relocate skyscrapers to make downtown completely car friendly. Therefore we need to move people on to alternative forms of transportation to move the mass amount of people effectively through the core.

In terms of Jarvis, we should return it to a 5 lane setup, but we should also turn the far right lanes into HOV lanes during their respective rush hours. We have a large number of people commuting from a general corridor all commuting into a central core. Encouraging car pooling along this stretch makes far more sense than to encourage people to cycle for several miles from Mt. Pleasant and St. Clair.