Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[The Mad Navigator]

I keep seeing people say this, and it's a nice sentiment, but it's not really true. Good, cheap and efficient transit generally comes at the expense of road space. To make transit better we necessarily must make it harder for people to drive.

So you're all for shoving transit projects down peoples throats? Even if they're not luxurious subway lines?

I'm not sure if it has to be that way, but something must be done to alter the thinking of driving being a right and not a privelege.

 

[leopetr]

Guys, let's not overdo the vinegar and the stick. There's plenty of honey and carrot left.

1. A single Transit City LRV takes upwards of 200 cars off the road, meaning that if you drive, the transit line will reduce traffic and make your driving easier.

2. There are no major lane reductions planned AFAIK and in fact in many cases the roads are being widened.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If Toronto needs a European city in which to use as a model for the TTC, it should be Munich, Germany.

Click on this link to the EuroTest website.

The Press Release:

City mobility depends on good local public transport
“Not bad but could do better!†that was the verdict of EuroTest’s latest local public transport survey around
Europe.
“Despite some positive results, there is still much space for improvement. Customers need clear, visible and
understandable information†said Wil Botman, Director General of the FIA European Bureau. â€Efficient
transport with good interconnections is essential if people are to be persuaded to leave their cars at home.â€
Travel times, ease of transfers, information provision, ticketing and fares were the criteria examined in this
Eurotest. The survey, carried out by the EuroTest consortium consisting of 16 clubs in 15 countries led by
German automobile club ADAC under the aegis of the FIA European Bureau, rated nine cities “acceptableâ€,
eleven “good†and Munich, the best, was “very goodâ€. Two cities, Zagreb and Ljubljana failed altogether to
make the grade.
According to Botman, “Looking at the results of this local public transport test and the 2009 Park & Ride
EuroTest which examined the availability of out of town parking linked to city transport systems reveal a
strong correlation between efficient transport modes and the best performing cities.â€
The FIA European Bureau reiterates its position in calling for pragmatic and realistic solutions to city
mobility challenges: congestion charging schemes do not necessarily result in the best public transport
provision. London, with its famous congestion charging scheme, was placed 20th out of the 23 tested cities.
Mobility and access to good local transport means are crucial for the development of an inclusive society
that caters for its more vulnerable members, be they people with disability, senior citizens, single parents
commuting with young children or those unable to afford a car. Good public transport should offer to all in
cities a link to daily life and society.
The Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) European Bureau calls for more effective
interconnections within transport systems to encourage travellers to take advantage of the range of
individual mobility solutions. In congested cities especially, use of different transport modes lessens
congestion. Fluid traffic reduces accidents and emissions, is good for road safety and improves the quality
of life in the cities.

 

[kettal]

You're right. Unfortunately, the way Toronto is going about it is not the right way. You don't make transit the more attractive option by making the car less attractive, you make transit more attractive by making transit better. You don't want the options to be bad or worse, you want the options to be good or better. Boosting transit ridership by making it harder for people to drive, without actually improving transit at all, is pointless, and will only lead to more frustration.

Straw man. Transit city streets will be widened, and car traffic will move smoother as it will no longer get stuck behind buses.

 

[Rainforest]

I keep seeing people say this, and it's a nice sentiment, but it's not really true. Good, cheap and efficient transit generally comes at the expense of road space. To make transit better we necessarily must make it harder for people to drive.

The policy of artificially restricting driving is unlikely to succeed. First of all, how can you implement it? The majority of 416 residents drive, even moreso 905 residents, and this is a democracy. So if the voters see that the governmnent cuts the road space without providing viable public transit alternatives, they will replace the government at the next elections.

Furthermore, even if a municipality (say 416) restricts driving, that might push residents and jobs into areas without decent public transit at all, resulting in an even more car-dependent lifestyle. Though that will help reduce the road congestion, it will increase overall pollution and greenhouse emission.

Anyway, as Kettal and Leopetr pointed out, Transit City construction will not eliminate much road space, except for central left-turn lanes.

 

[Dan416]

I am nowhere as convinced that Sherway is of no value. Remember that this is a Toronto Transit Commission metro (as in urban) subway line so the suggestion to bypass the closest thing to an urban centre we’ve got on the Toronto/Mississauga border is ridiculous. Does not a fair share of Sherway patrons (mall, hospital, office park, big box centre) consist of visitors from Mississauga? For routes like the 5 and 23 getting dumped off at the Long Branch bus shed to lay wait the infrequent 501 car doesn’t sound nearly as nice as staying on-board their bus straight into the nearest subway. For them that would be the Queensway/West Mall area. And let’s not forget the significance of the location in general. BRT routes from as far as Malton, Brampton, Woodbridge and Oakville could be serviced out of this station i.e. no more draconian transferring from one transit operator to the next as one passes through a municipal boundary, just the convenience of one-seat direct rides. So in essence, what average Joe 905 customers would be getting is GO Transit bus standards of speed and directness without being subject to GO's outrageous pricing schema nor infrequent scheduling of bus trips.

It’s kind of sad that you mention Dundas/Dixie as a logical terminus because we both know that no one will ever be satisfied with that. They’ll want to extend it next to Cooksville, then onto Square One, and I’ve even heard on this very forum cries to extend it all the way to Creditview/Burnhamthrope. What’s next: Erin Mills, Meadowvale, Lisgar? It is this mindset that will make by the year 2110 no part of the city/region will fetch anything beyond a few piecemeal LRT lines that if we’re lucky may stretch cross-town but will still be subject to mitigating traffic, weather, blackouts, road deterioration, and population drift just to name a few.

I don't seriously think we should bypass Sherway entirely. But it's no transit hub. It has one MT route. And it'll never have more. Southeastern Mississauga across from the Etobicoke border is a stable population (or perhaps losing population). Yes people visit Sherway from Mississauga definitely yes. And the ones who take public transit take the ONE route that (eventually) gets there. The rest drive. If there was a subway, sure people would take it. But the rest of the MT routes would still come nowhere near Sherway. It's just too out-of-the-way for the vast majority of MT routes. You clearly did not look at the link I referred you to.

As for Dixie/Dundas as a terminus, it's not really.I'm fine with Sherway as a terminus, but it'd be better if the subway reached across the border. It'd help more NOW than a Sherway stop ever would. Like I said, East Mall would see usage, Sherway would not.

 

[kEiThZ]

Bus routew though are maleable. There's nothing that says more routes can't run to Sherway. Put in a bus terminal there and and a transitway or two and Sherway becomes an awesome terminal.

 

[Dan416]

Bus routew though are maleable. There's nothing that says more routes can't run to Sherway. Put in a bus terminal there and and a transitway or two and Sherway becomes an awesome terminal.

You're completely missing the point. Buses should run to whatever station is closest. Sherway is NOT closest to ANY MT route other than the one that already runs there. We're trying to fix the problem of MT routes running all the way to Islington needlessly now. Why waste people's time travelling an extra km or two when the buses drive right by Kipling?

I don't know how many ways I can word this. Sherway will NEVER be a terminal for MT routes. NEVER. Comprendez? It's too far. If a Sherway extension ever gets built, one of the new stations, East Mall, will be right beside the 427 and Dundas and will be easily accessible to all the routes that currently trek to Islington. There is NO logic to having MT routes run all the way to Sherway. I thought you people were pro-transit? Christ.

 

[GraphicMatt]

CC, when you started SoS, how much of it was motivated by your desire to see the subway extended into Mississauga?

 

[gweed123]

Straw man. Transit city streets will be widened, and car traffic will move smoother as it will no longer get stuck behind buses.

No it isn't. They may be widened, but they will also be taking out a lot of on-street parking, as well as left hand turn lanes. I'm skeptical at best at how the whole diverted left turn thing is going to work out. I see it as being a pain in the ass for motorists, and confusing as hell for tourists. Please tell me how the new left turn configurations being proposed on many of the TC lines will make traffic flow 'smoother'.

 

[Voltz]

No it isn't. They may be widened, but they will also be taking out a lot of on-street parking, as well as left hand turn lanes. I'm skeptical at best at how the whole diverted left turn thing is going to work out. I see it as being a pain in the ass for motorists, and confusing as hell for tourists. Please tell me how the new left turn configurations being proposed on many of the TC lines will make traffic flow 'smoother'.

I challenge you to find one spot on Finch, Sheppard or Eglinton with on street parking that will be removed,

Although I am not a fan of the diverted left turn schemes that are proposed on eglinton, there is only so much green time available, taking it away from left turning cars can allow more time for straight through vehicles and allow more to get through an intersection over all.

 

[fanoftoronto]

I don't know about on-street parking but I know that the number of lanes in Eglintone East from Brentcliffe to Kennedy is going to be brought down to 2 from the present 2+ HOV. I've driven on that stretch of Eglinton a few times and there is always cars on all three lanes but it moves at ~60 km/h. If you reduce it to two lanes then that's gonna be a problem coz all the cars now have to fit in the 2 lanes instead of 3. The overall speed is gonna come down making it a pain to drive on that section of Eglinton.

 

[GraphicMatt]

This is what I'm getting at. Transit City will make car traffic slower in some places. It's inevitable. This is not something to be ashamed of, nor is it something transit advocates should sheepishly downplay. This is about priorities.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think taking lanes away from motorists is a big deal and the public will accept it if transit genuinely improves. However, the public isn't stupid either. If lanes are taken away or inconveniences added for drivers, for what they consider to be only marginal transit improvements, you can bet they'll be upset. Time will tell which side of the public's temperament Transit City falls on.

You can bet though that demands for subways extension (to STC for Bloor-Danforth at least) won't go away. Though some (Sheppard East) might be a little more muted.

 

[kEiThZ]

You're completely missing the point. Buses should run to whatever station is closest. Sherway is NOT closest to ANY MT route other than the one that already runs there. We're trying to fix the problem of MT routes running all the way to Islington needlessly now. Why waste people's time travelling an extra km or two when the buses drive right by Kipling?

I don't know how many ways I can word this. Sherway will NEVER be a terminal for MT routes. NEVER. Comprendez? It's too far. If a Sherway extension ever gets built, one of the new stations, East Mall, will be right beside the 427 and Dundas and will be easily accessible to all the routes that currently trek to Islington. There is NO logic to having MT routes run all the way to Sherway. I thought you people were pro-transit? Christ.

So East Mall, fair enough? Nobody said Sherway for sure. The point is, that 'sauga residents will benefit even if the subway doesn't go all the way to Square One. But I have always suggested that Sherway alone would not serve Mississauga residents. You'd have the Dundas LRT plugging in at Kipling, a bus terminal at Sherway, maybe an extended Eglinton LRT, and a BRT on the 427 or on the Kipling Hydro corridor to provide speedy access to the subway station for buses on Bloor, Burnamthorpe and Rathburn to a subway terminal at East Mall/Honedyale or Kipling (depending on how this idea is implemented). That BRT proposal is quite similar to what SOS has in mind for Scarborough in lieu of a SRT extension. Why wouldn't the same concept work in Mississauga?