Transit expansion in Toronto, but nothing for the downtown

[Automation Gallery]

Fight congestion with mobility

Denzil Minnan-Wong
City Councillor for Ward 34

Imagine you have a clogged sink in your kitchen. Do you try to unclog it using Drano or a plunger, or do you pour a quart of gooey lard on top of whatever is causing the clog in the first place?

If you were the City of Toronto, you'd reach for the lard. Or at least that's what a citizen might perceive if presented with the following recommended antidotes to what everyone in the city acknowledges is a serious and worsening traffic congestion problem:

Remove a traffic lane from Jarvis.

Pick 10 busy corners and ban right-hand turns on red lights.

Make Roncesvalles Ave. narrower.

Turn Adelaide and Richmond Sts. into two-way streets west of University Ave.

Tear down part of the Gardiner Expressway at the DVP and funnel traffic onto Lake Shore Blvd.

In other words, remove infrastructure rather than fix things and keep people moving.

To be fair, due to the generosity of the federal and provincial governments, there will be transit expansion in Toronto, but nothing for the downtown, where, arguably, the congestion problem is most acute.

The rest of the article.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/638471

 

[kettal]

Sounds like a political advertisement to me.

The best thing that can be done to improve travel downtown immediately is to give the King streetcar a higher priority in traffic.

Also, congestion is worse in the suburbs than downtown

 

[kettal]

Here's a comment I submitted to the Star:

What does New York City, London, Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong all have in common? They all give priority to alternative forms of transport. New York is removing traffic lanes for bike paths. London charges congestion fees. All of these cities ban turning on a red light. And despite all this, they are the economic engines of the world.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I don't think your thread title is really what Minnan-Wong is writing about: he's mostly just pissed about Jarvis Street.

Transit City DOES ignore the downtown core, though. It's a huge missing piece of the plan.

 

[kEiThZ]

Here's a comment I submitted to the Star:

What does New York City, London, Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong all have in common? They all give priority to alternative forms of transport. New York is removing traffic lanes for bike paths. London charges congestion fees. All of these cities ban turning on a red light. And despite all this, they are the economic engines of the world.

Using London as an example, it had a heavily developed public transport system before it slapped on a congestion charge. A lot of what is happening in Toronto is well before any alternatives will be in place. In the case of downtown, all that change to Jarvis and no investment in improving transit in the area. How is that not a dig at motorists?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Using London as an example, it had a heavily developed public transport system before it slapped on a congestion charge. A lot of what is happening in Toronto is well before any alternatives will be in place. In the case of downtown, all that change to Jarvis and no investment in improving transit in the area. How is that not a dig at motorists?

What's a motorist? Seriously. I have a car and I take transit and I walk places - what am I? Let's not pretend there's an oppressed minority of people in this city who are entirely incapable of getting places without bringing their car.

 

[kettal]

Using London as an example, it had a heavily developed public transport system before it slapped on a congestion charge. A lot of what is happening in Toronto is well before any alternatives will be in place. In the case of downtown, all that change to Jarvis and no investment in improving transit in the area. How is that not a dig at motorists?

London's transit is a whole level of unreliable worse than the TTC. But that aside, I don't think Toronto is in a position yet to have congestion charges. My point was that the so-called War on Car is not the end of the economy some claim it is.

 

[smuncky]

there's a discussion over at spacing about this actually.

http://spacing.ca/wire/2009/05/22/new-york-city-lessons-and-torontos-fairytale-war-on-the-car/

 

[Automation Gallery]

there's a discussion over at spacing about this actually.

http://spacing.ca/wire/2009/05/22/new-york-city-lessons-and-torontos-fairytale-war-on-the-car/

I dont know if its fair comparing the two cities transit infastructure. For example Toronto has 68 km of subway track compared to New York city with 1355 km of subway track.

 

[junctionist]

Actually, the 1355 km figures includes all tracks in the system, including non-revenue tracks which don't serve any locations. New York has 369 km of subway routes, unsurprising for a city with several times more people.

 

[nfitz]

Actually, the 1355 km figures includes all tracks in the system, including non-revenue tracks which don't serve any locations. New York has 369 km of subway routes, unsurprising for a city with several times more people.

And we've got 62 km of subway. So New York has about 6 times more subway (more if you include the PATH), But is only a bit more than 3 times our size.

 

[kEiThZ]

London's transit is a whole level of unreliable worse than the TTC. But that aside, I don't think Toronto is in a position yet to have congestion charges. My point was that the so-called War on Car is not the end of the economy some claim it is.

Perhaps not...but there's no doubt that it will cause some lost productivity (because of congestion) and generally piss off a good segment of the population who presently have few options but to drive (it can be cheaper for many). I am willing to support tolls, parking taxes, etc. and more bike lanes. But I'd like to see that go towards improving transit firtst. That effort should not be aimed at making drivers as miserable as possible. That's ideology.

That said. I do support the changes being made to Jarvis. The right turn rule changes not so much....

 

[rbt]

Using London as an example, it had a heavily developed public transport system before it slapped on a congestion charge.

Technically this is true but in practise it probably was not.

They had a large subway system BUT it was and remains at capacity. The subway system does not carry any more people during peak travel periods than it did before simply because it is not capable of it.

London rapidly expanded their bus network to cope with the conversion of drivers to public transit users when the congestion charge came into place. Since there were fewer cars, old bus routes also became much more efficient.


Toronto could just as easily introduce a congestion charge between Bathurst, St. Clair, and Sherbourne; and purchase an additional 200 buses to serve this area in addition to existing capacity.

A bus running every 30 seconds on all major downtown streets would be quite effective at carrying new clients. Older streetcar networks would also have capacity increased as the King and Queen car would move quicker through the core.


Point being that the argument of a highly developed network only really works if it has significant spare capacity; otherwise alternative will need to be procured regardless of the size of the current network.

 

[kEiThZ]

Fair enough. But that's not what's going on. They city isn't charging tolls and using them to bolster public transit as an alternative. It's simply ripping up existing infrastructure (Gardiner East) or changing rules (no right on red) simply to make it harder to drive downtown. That strikes me as rather juvenile. I have always believed that if given a good solid alternative to driving, most people would rather not drive. As it stands right now, we don't have it. Miller's solution: don't make public transit faster or more efficient, just make driving slower and less efficient than public transit.

I also think that the London example has some merit because transit usage before the congestion charge was probably higher than whatever we have today. They probably had less commuters who were impacted by the congestion charge than we would have by many of Miller's policies. If we can get to the point where most people are taking transit then congestion charges, demolition of main arteries (Gardiner), lane reductions, etc. would not be as much of an issue. Right now, we are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Whoaccio]

I think there is a "war on cars," as it were. There is a definite sentiment going around that people who use their cars to commute are to varying degrees "the problem" as opposed to a symptom of larger transportation planning or land use planning.

What's a motorist? Seriously. I have a car and I take transit and I walk places - what am I? Let's not pretend there's an oppressed minority of people in this city who are entirely incapable of getting places without bringing their car.

This is emblematic of the lopsided thinking. Technically, yes, 99% of people probably can get places without using their car. Just because they can use public transit doesn't make it a good idea though. Its no secret that taking public transit from outside of downtown to most places outside of downtown is a harrowing affair compared to driving.