Transit expansion in Toronto, but nothing for the downtown

[scarberiankhatru]

Take a longer look at those cars with one person inside.

While you weren't looking, he majority of them began their daily journey with several passengers.

But after Mom drops off the husband at the train/subway/bus stop, and drops off their 2.3 kids at one or more schools, daycare or the babysitter, and drops off grandma at the senior centre, then she gets to complete her journey creeping along in bumper-to-bumper traffic, burning scarce fuel and emitting needless CO2, while the occasional vacationer zips past in an otherwise under-utilized "carpool" lane.

If you and all your neighbours work at the same plant, fine. But carpooling is hardly a practical solution outside of the company-built subdivisions of the '50s and '60s.

While some of those cars dropped a passenger off at a transit stop, most did not carry the entire household when they left the driveway and the situation you described is clearly in the minority. Average household size is nowhere near 5.3 people and the odds that a household with 5+ people has only one car is also rather small. Don't forget to throw in decent transit usage even in the suburban fringe and most of the 905, increasing part-time and non-9to5 work, more working from home, etc.

 

[GTS]

I look at TO highway system as part of our transit infrastructure. I see a few city buses and many commuter buses on our highways. I see Go buses and Coach Canada buses extensively using our highways to move people. I wonder if anyone has the numbers but I think the 401 moves many, many more people then any of our subway lines do. Sure, most of the vehicles are single occupancy cars with an occasional commuter bus thrown in the mix, but any way you look at it our highway system moves more people then all our subways, buses and commuter rail put together. I don't have the numbers to prove this but it is just something I observe. I think Toronto should look into a more efficient way of using this resource, our highways for better public transit services.

On another note I would like to see the Gardiner torn down replaced with something at grade or in a trench and the downtown portion in a tunnel.

 

[Swamp Thing]

Again, there is no oppressed class of people in this city who are completely incapable of going ANYWHERE without their car.

No, but there are very many people in the GTA for whom a car is their only practical means of getting around. And they are being under-served by current policies that prioritize stopping cars over providing practical alternative transportation. (Yes, transit riders are also under-served by these same policies.)

Gardiner East: Waterfront planners believe the highway as it exists poses a barrier to development.

No they don't. A professional "planner" would not be able to escape the observation that the existence of the Gardiner in no way impeded the development of the condos currently walling off the waterfront from the rest of the city. And the Gardiner has also proven to be less of an impediment to traffic in and out of the waterfront than Lake Shoe Blvd. and the rail corridor. It is, after all, an elevated expressway.

Right-turn-on-reds: This is a safety issue and it will only be happening at a few (9? I think?) intersections where there's lots of pedestrian traffic.

No, it isn't a safety issue. There are no studies that have demonstrated a safety benefit to removing RTOR. The current trend is for jurisdictions that adopted bylaws against RTOR to rescind them.

You can disagree with the moves, but don't misrepresent why they're on the table.

It seems that the very parties who put these moves on the table are misrepresenting their motives.

 

[kettal]

No, it isn't a safety issue. There are no studies that have demonstrated a safety benefit to removing RTOR. The current trend is for jurisdictions that adopted bylaws against RTOR to rescind them.

This is being done only on intersections which have had a high pedestrian accidents involving right turns. Remind me why it's not a safety issue?

 

[Glen]

I've been round and round on this one a lot, but quickly: almost all of the waterfront development we've seen thus far has been residential. Downtown residents still rarely go down to the lake. There's clearly some kind of barrier there, whether psychological or physical. I think it's the highway. Others think it's the rail berm. Some think it's the 'wall of condos' themselves, which is kind of stupid, but whatever.

To suggest that there is a barrier, of some sorts, implies that there are people whom desire to go to the lake but because of such an encumbrance are prohibited from doing so.

Bull. The only barrier is boredom.

The point is this: I don't think you can seriously talk about developing Toronto's waterfront without talking about the highway.

As Keith has pointed out, it has not stopped development as witnessed by the condos. What has happened is that nothing but condos has been developed, which should be the most sensitive to any encumbrances, visual or physical. Business care for the view less than residents. So the question is why does the Gardiner get the blame, as it is inconsistent with reality?

 

[kettal]

But after Mom drops off the husband at the train/subway/bus stop, and drops off their 2.3 kids at one or more schools, daycare or the babysitter, and drops off grandma at the senior centre, then she gets to complete her journey creeping along in bumper-to-bumper traffic, burning scarce fuel and emitting needless CO2, while the occasional vacationer zips past in an otherwise under-utilized "carpool" lane.

And each bus that uses that carpool lane has removed 70 cars from the road. Do you wish there were thousands of more cars on the road? Is that good for gridlock traffic and emissions?

 

[GraphicMatt]

No, but there are very many people in the GTA for whom a car is their only practical means of getting around. And they are being under-served by current policies that prioritize stopping cars over providing practical alternative transportation. (Yes, transit riders are also under-served by these same policies.)

Don't look now, but making a street more walkable and providing bike lanes (while still having automobile traffic) is providing practical forms of alternative transportation on our downtown streets.

Could they city do more? Sure. They should do more to improve transit downtown, absolutely.

No they don't. A professional "planner" would not be able to escape the observation that the existence of the Gardiner in no way impeded the development of the condos currently walling off the waterfront from the rest of the city. And the Gardiner has also proven to be less of an impediment to traffic in and out of the waterfront than Lake Shoe Blvd. and the rail corridor. It is, after all, an elevated expressway.

So your thesis is that Waterfront Toronto is made up of anti-car forces that hate the idea of people getting places in their car quickly? That doesn't wash.

As said, you can think they're 100% wrong in their belief for why we should consider taking down (a small part) of the Gardiner, but don't assume it's purely anti-car. That's ridiculous.

No, it isn't a safety issue. There are no studies that have demonstrated a safety benefit to removing RTOR. The current trend is for jurisdictions that adopted bylaws against RTOR to rescind them.

There are absolutely some intersections in which banning RTOR makes sense due to safety concerns. No one anywhere in Toronto has called for a city-wide ban on RTOR.

 

[GraphicMatt]

To suggest that there is a barrier, of some sorts, implies that there are people whom desire to go to the lake but because of such an encumbrance are prohibited from doing so.

Bull. The only barrier is boredom.

Well, yeah, the current development on the waterfront around Queen's Quay is dull. Could an eastern waterfront that connects to the rest of the city without a highway in the way be a piece of what makes for a vibrant waterfront? I don't know. But it's worth discussing and isn't automatically an anti-car proposal, is it?

As Keith has pointed out, it has not stopped development as witnessed by the condos. What has happened is that nothing but condos has been developed, which should be the most sensitive to any encumbrances, visual or physical. Business care for the view less than residents. So the question is why does the Gardiner get the blame, as it is inconsistent with reality?

Glen, have you considered that maybe the problem in Toronto is that business taxes are too high?

 

[kEiThZ]

The Eastern waterfront is a good example. No Gardiner. However, not much to do either. How many people spend their weekends at the eastern waterfront on a regular basis, other than residents who live close by? I wish the city would stop blaming the Gardiner for all its problems. Will taking down the Gardiner from Jarvis to the DVP suddenly make the waterfront a whole lot more vibrant? Or more accessible? I doubt it. There's isn't much to do (yet) and there's going to be a 10 lane 'grand avenue' in the way.

I would rather have seen them bury the Gardiner, pay for it with tolls and construct a 6 lane Lakeshore with bike lanes, extra wide pedestrian walkways and double treed curbs. This whole deal has come out of our politicians' inability to make an unpopular decision (tolls) while trying to achieve some wonky aims (take down a 'psychological barrier'). So instead we get a half baked idea of transitioning a highway to an avenue at Jarvis and then back up to a highway at the DVP.

 

[Swamp Thing]

While some of those cars dropped a passenger off at a transit stop, most did not carry the entire household when they left the driveway and the situation you described is clearly in the minority. Average household size is nowhere near 5.3 people and the odds that a household with 5+ people has only one car is also rather small. Don't forget to throw in decent transit usage even in the suburban fringe and most of the 905, increasing part-time and non-9to5 work, more working from home, etc.

This is what I've observed, and it's not such a minority case as you might think.

You're not taking into account the full effect of suburbia on Toronto traffic. Mississauga, to use the most obvious example, is far from being a city of young singles and childless couples in skyrise condos. Where 3- and 4-bedroom homes are the norm, 4- and 5-person families abound. In addition, many of those homes have finished basement suites for the elderly parents, upping the headcount.

And that's just the Anglo Saxon families! Add to that the increasing numbers of Asian, Middle Eastern and South Asian households with traditional extended families, and 5.3 persons per household starts looking a little sparse. Somebody is buying those 7-passenger minivans we see everywhere, and it sure ain't because they're cool.

Yes, it is more likely that a household of 5.3 people traveling to 4 or 5 destinations daily would do so in 2 cars. That just doubles the number of lone-occupant trips you observe that didn't start out that way.

 

[Swamp Thing]

This is being done only on intersections which have had a high pedestrian accidents involving right turns. Remind me why it's not a safety issue?

Because after banning RTOR at these intersections, the number of pedestrian deaths and injuries at these intersections will remain the same.

 

[Glen]

Glen, have you considered that maybe the problem in Toronto is that business taxes are too high?

Fuck, I just spit out my coffee!

Seriously, before the Gardiner takes the blame, it would have to be proven why it is an impediment for everything but residential.

 

[Swamp Thing]

And each bus that uses that carpool lane has removed 70 cars from the road. Do you wish there were thousands of more cars on the road? Is that good for gridlock traffic and emissions?

Don't put words in my mouth so you can tell me they're wrong.

Since you asked, what I wish is for all traffic to be able to use all available lanes and flow freer than when denied access to a nearly empty lane.

And that bus of yours removes cars from the road regardless of whether it's in a carpool lane or not.

 

[Glen]

Re: RTOR

I like what Chicago does. During rush hour, officers man busy intersections and ensure that pedestrians and autos alike obey signals. Proves to be safe and effective, it also prevents gridlock.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

This is what I've observed, and it's not such a minority case as you might think.

You're not taking into account the full effect of suburbia on Toronto traffic. Mississauga, to use the most obvious example, is far from being a city of young singles and childless couples in skyrise condos. Where 3- and 4-bedroom homes are the norm, 4- and 5-person families abound. In addition, many of those homes have finished basement suites for the elderly parents, upping the headcount.

And that's just the Anglo Saxon families! Add to that the increasing numbers of Asian, Middle Eastern and South Asian households with traditional extended families, and 5.3 persons per household starts looking a little sparse. Somebody is buying those 7-passenger minivans we see everywhere, and it sure ain't because they're cool.

Yes, it is more likely that a household of 5.3 people traveling to 4 or 5 destinations daily would do so in 2 cars. That just doubles the number of lone-occupant trips you observe that didn't start out that way.

This isn't about what I think, it's about what is factual, what is anecdotal, and what is just made up.