News   Jul 03, 2024
 130     0 
News   Jul 02, 2024
 875     0 
News   Jul 02, 2024
 2.4K     0 

the Star: TTC's role in GTA transit

M

mpolo2

Guest
not sure if this was posted eslewhere already (didnt see it yet)

Is it the TTC's job to fix GTA transit?

RON BULL/TORONTO STAR

January 04, 2007
David Bruser
Michele Henry
STAFF REPORTERS

The TTC must be the catalyst for a revitalized transit network across Greater Toronto, says a long-time transit expert. But TTC chair Adam Giambrone says his agency must look after its own needs first.

"Toronto's aspirations for growth depend on what goes on out there in the hinterland," said expert Richard Soberman. "All this residential growth is happening out there. If they want more First Canadian Places, then we want a more integrated transit system because we've committed to no further expansion of the road network."

The need for a revitalized network was apparent this week. Cancelled GO trains and buses delayed thousands of commuters Tuesday and yesterday. A short shutdown of the TTC's Yonge subway line at rush hour Tuesday sent riders streaming onto downtown streets.

These are just the latest troubles for the agencies.

The TTC is struggling to keep up with increasing ridership while GO Transit trains must share track with CN and CP freight trains – and the freights have the right-of-way. GO also hires CN and CP staff to run the locomotives, sometimes leading to labour problems that are out of GO's control.

Yet with the GTA's roads becoming increasingly congested, public transit is seen as part of the solution for moving people. And Soberman says the Toronto Transit Commission is the key. "(The TTC is) supposed to work in the City of Toronto's interests, (which) will be maintained with good linkages and accessibility to and from the surrounding regions where all the residential growth is taking place."

However, "it's going to need some high-level change in philosophy and attitude," said Soberman – and that includes limiting the role of politicians on the TTC. Nine Toronto councillors make up its board.

"I think the TTC has lost that leading edge and it has lost it because of the political involvement," Soberman said.

The current makeup of the commission promotes short-term thinking that often does not get beyond doing what's popular for one neighbourhood. Meanwhile, what's good for the region gets lost.

"Appoint some people with qualifications to run this in a more business-like manner. Once upon a time, everybody came to Toronto to learn it right by the TTC. They don't come any more."

The TTC is by far the GTA's largest transit provider, carrying each day the vast majority of the region's passenger load. On a typical weekday, TTC buses, streetcars and subway trains carry more than 1 million passengers. GO trains and buses carry 190,000.

But Soberman's proposal for the TTC to take the lead was met with strong opposition from Giambrone, a city councillor who says there's a grave risk of bleeding the TTC to nourish suburban transit service.

He fears that improving transit in the 905 regions could simply become a raid on the TTC.

"We have a role to play in regional transit, but our first priority has to be the transit users of Toronto and the residents of Toronto," he said. "There's a real fear that if we pool resources then TTC resources will spread out more evenly across the GTA, which would increase service in the 905 area, but would lead to a dramatic reduction of service in Toronto."

Suburban transit systems simply aren't as dense as Toronto's, in large part because of the low-density pattern of development.

Giambrone said the solution is to fund and develop stronger transit systems in each region. For example, he said it might make sense to build a surface rail service or dedicated bus lanes up and down Hurontario St. in Mississauga, where there's already strong demand for transit. Similarly, Viva is developing strong routes in York Region.

Then it makes sense to link those systems to the TTC, with the help of the new Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, he said. The GTTA was set up by the province to develop the region's transportation needs. It's expected GO will fall under its purview.

Ed Levy, senior consultant with BA Consulting Group, notes that because GO must share track, scheduling GO commuter trains becomes nearly impossible.

"How long can we afford to have commuter trains in the GTA subservient to freight trains, especially during peak periods?" he asked.

To be fair, GO Transit is upgrading much of its facilities and adding new rail lines but with one-time government funding. The construction has meant disrupted service.

"While the debate goes on among the experts, long-suffering commuters were taking the latest service hiccups in stride.

Opposition politicians at Queen's Park called for better funding for transit.

"Until you put adequate money into the system people are going to be standing on platforms, they're going to be late for work and we're going to have gridlock," said New Democrat Peter Tabuns (Toronto Danforth).

with files from Rob Ferguson

and John Spears
 
Given the current makeup of transit in the GTA, there is nothing wrong with Giambrone's way of thinking. My taxes go toward the TTC, therefore I don't want my money being spent on service elsewhere.

In the grand scheme of things however, transit in the GTA is a complete mess. It's ridiculous that the TTC operates as if Toronto was an island, and it's no different for other transit systems. In terms of transportation, there is no Mississauga, Toronto, or York Region. Call it what you want, but we live in one giant urbanized area with people travelling in every possible direction. It's about time we had a single transit system that addressed actual travel patterns rather than irrelevant political boundaries.
 
Don't most urban areas only have ONE transit system? i.e. , Translink, most western Canadian cities, OC Transpo, and SORTA for Cincinnati (although I don't have any bus service within 10 miles)

The way this is going, Giambrone seems light years ahead of Moscoe and some of those other dudes.
 
Most western Canadian cities are unitary - Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary, Regina, are stand-alone municipalities with few or no suburban cities. OC Transpo used to be a regional service, like HSR or the TTC, and still, the Ottawa urban area is served by two systems - OC and STO.

Though in the US, yes most urban areas have one or two systems - Cleveland, Philly (at least the Pennsylvania side, NJ Transit does the NJ side), Pittsburgh, Boston, Las Vegas, Dallas, etc.

In the US, sometimes an urban and a suburban system (ie CTA/Pace, D-DOT/SMART), but some urban areas still have multiple systems - LA, Bay Area, New York.

Translink is interesting - it is actually a very integrated group of technically separate systems - there's two bus systems (Coast Mountain and West Vancouver's own system), a commuter rail line, a rapid transit system, etc, but apart from West Van's distinctive buses, the average person wouldn't notice.

Why not a CTA/Pace type set up for Toronto? One system to run the inner, busier routes, another to connect the suburbs to each other and to the TTC. GO would remain in charge of the commuter service, with the GTTA coordinating all three for fares, route numbers, common website and maps, etc.

The Translink model is even better, with some fare integration with WCE, and a simple zone fare system encompassing all systems and modes (and if Mississauga wanted to run its own system because it is too self-important, it could, a la West Van).
 
Looking at the GTA, Steeles is a ridiculous place for a fare boundary. Until a good GTA transit agency is up and running, supporting 905 projects seems like a good idea, but this may just lead to projects that don't fit into the bigger picture. As it stands, there's a million expansion/improvement proposals floating around, for GO trains, subways, LRT, BRT, buses, etc., and none of it's coordinated.

For example, VIVA Green's route is rather silly and not useful in the long run...what's needed are rapid transit routes of some sort that go straight up Don Mills to Beaver Creek, up Warden to Markham Centre, and up McCowan to Markville, each hitting a subway station in the south (Warden requires an extended Sheppard line :) ), and with the Stouffville GO line quickly bringing people directly downtown. The double or triple fares and the need to coordinate capital and operating endeavours prevent such projects from happening. A GTTA could double suburban/905 transit usage in no time.

Soberman seems to want the TTC to just absorb the other agencies, but it wouldn't be that simple, and, given GO, maybe some higher power should be created. Anyway, I hope Soberman's kept far away from the GTTA's board...
 
There is some logic in what Giambrone is saying. But, like everyone is saying, at the end of the day the real problem is a coordination problem. And Giambrone's attitude does not exactly help to solve it. If he wants to fix transit, even within Toronto proper, and doesn't want to step on anyone's toes, then why not cheerlead for the GTTA a little bit as the future of integrated transit planning? God knows we need some agency to feel like that's it's role. If the GTTA can step up and do it, then why not.

The ironic thing is that, in my opinion, one of the major ways in which transit *within* Toronto might be helped, would be to start sticking GO train routes on TTC maps, in order to create enough public pressure that we could finally tap into that enthusiasm for more subway lines -- rightly or wrongly, it exists -- and channel it into viewing GO trains as express lines for zipping around Toronto and the GTA. Who knows. The required GO train frequency, Bloor line connection on the way to and from Union, integration with Sheppard line and VIVA at Langstaff, and everything else might just follow. I mean, it does make sense ... right?
 
I think he means on the subway map we see when we sit on the subway train.
 
Transit

By the way, that angry face was a mistake... :)
 
Re: Transit

Obviously because this is an "urban" forum, then we would mostly support high density development. But as long as people are willing to buy 3000-4000sf detatched homes, they will continue to be built (unless there is sufficient political will that doesn't exist).
 
Transit

>: In my humble opinion, the transportation problem can not be solved in isolation of the urban design problem, which created the transportation problem in the first place.

To me, the TTC should work with the planning department more closely. Rather than building low density areas and then trying to solve the inevitable transportation problem that goes along with it, we should focus on not creating the problem in the first place (i.e. no more low density!).

As for the already low density areas, the provinical government (or the new GTA transportation authority) should send out the word that if you want more transit, get your house in order by increasing your densities by RE-designing your current low density areas. And don't tell me it can't be done, b/c it can. And I'd add one more thing, don't build up your densities like they're doing along Burnhamthorpe where you have high density development where everyone still drives b/c there is no 'main street' stype of building.

In others, lets stop making the problem in the first place (i.e. end low density development) and fix the source of the current problem now (i.e. urbanize the suburban areas).

Trying to serve current suburban development with increased transit and/or new suburban development only continues to encourage that type of development, and I think we should be doing everything we can to discourage it.

If they continue, in my opinion, they still 'dont get it'.

For the future, lets try to use some preventative thinking so that we don't create future transportation problems!
 
Transit

I agree...

...so my next question is this:

What ideas can you/us/we come up with that we think the goverment could use to discourage the 3000-4000 sf homes you indicated and instead encourage more modest homes in an urban setting?

(And by the way, I only agree to a point...there are many suburban homes that are still suburban, yet only 1250-2000 sf).

One idea I'll start with is location mortages.

www.locationefficiency.com/
 
Re: Transit

What about a residential property tax change - a hybrid between value of property and size of lot?

I'm sure there will be issues with such a scheme. Would Toronto, with average smaller lots than 905 municipalities, especially those with lots of executive subdivisions - ie Caledon, Vaughan, King - lose out? Maybe the property size portion encompass 10% of the hybrid and go directly to the GTTA.
 
Transit

Sounds interesting...you mean the size of the lot determines how much you pay?

That means me, living in downtown in a small condo would pay much less b/c the size of land we as a condo corporation consumes is not much more than maybe 4-7 suburban lots if that. And we'd all share the cost, which would be good...about time! :)
 

Back
Top