Semantics are fun!
A friend of mine who supports Transit City sent an email to Karen Stintz, and got a response from which I will now quote:
"As you may know, Transit City was not fully funded by the Province of Ontario or the Federal Government. The transit plan that has been funded is the Metrolinx Plan and that plan includes transit investment on Sheppard, Eglinton, the Scarborough RT and Finch. Stopping Transit City does not jeopardize the Metrolinx Plan."
While I do have the utmost respect for Karen Stintz, and have considered living in her ward, it must be said that the above quote is either factually mistaken or inadvertently misleading. The Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan identifies numerous policies for improving transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and building physical infrastructure is a part of the RTP. Transit City is the marketing name for a subset of projects within the RTP, and those projects include the half tunnel, half surface Eglinton-Crosstown LRT; the fully grade-separated Scarborough RT upgrade; and surface LRT lines on Finch, Jane, Sheppard, Don Mills and Eglinton/Kingston/Morningside. The first phase of some of these projects have been funded, but others are unfunded at this time.
Transit City is a part of the Metrolinx plan. In my opinion, it's an integral part. As such, cancelling it is cancelling part of the Metrolinx plan. If cancelling part of something places the rest of it in jeopardy, then cancelling Transit City jeopardizes the Metrolinx Plan.
My position on this issue was made quite clear
several posts ago, so I'm not going to repeat it. However, if we are going to have a discussion on these issues of the day, then we need to make sure that we're debating with facts - not with lies, hearsay and misinformation.
Labels: GTTA plan, light rail, municipal sillyness, politics, ttc
Open Payment, Part II
Mr. Giambrone's Facebook posts and tweets today make it quite clear to me that this has become a debate about municipal governance:
Presto was state of the art when it was first proposed seven years ago but is already obsolete. Adopting Presto because it already exists would just be throwing good money after bad. Mayoral candidates need to decide if they will stand up for Toronto or if they just want to impose the Province's will on the City.
If we're going to have the debate about municipal governance and municipal autonomy then let us have it. But, let's be open about the fact that this has ceased to be about Presto vs Open Payment.
The Councillor also said:
The McGuinty government has signed a $250 million contract with Accenture for the Presto card and the public does not know what is in it. The TTC has to spend its money very carefully and cannot enter into expensive contracts without a very clear understanding of it.
To this I respond, for the third time, will the agreement with the open payment firm be opened to public scrutiny to the public?
Labels: municipal sillyness, politics, ttc
Open Payment
According to Adam Giambrone's Facebook profile:
With all the talk about Presto today, remember that the TTC will have a signed binding deal for Open Payments (credit card and debit payment at the turnstile) this fall with implementation starting Jan. 2010. We have not said no to Presto, but Presto will take longer and be slower than "Open Payments"
I have been a huge supporter of the PRESTO fare card pretty much since day 1, and the benefits of the way its being implemented are many:
- Virtual monthly passes (where the rider pays for each ride until the reach a monthly cap) allow those who can't afford a monthly pass in a lump sum to still get the discounts because the PRESTO balance can be loaded as needed.
- Virtual monthly passes let riders pay for what they use, so they aren't left with a monthly pass that hasn't been used to its full potential, nor are they left regretting buying a monthly pass because they underestimated their use.
- PRESTO will work for all transit agencies in the GTHA, and is the vehicle through which future fare reform can take place.
- For Brampton residents, PRESTO will end the confusion at two ends of the city. Going northbound from the courthouse, Mississauga Transit buses come most frequently and offer free transfers to Brampton Transit - but Brampton tickets and passes aren't valid even though you're boarding in Brampton. With PRESTO, it won't matter - you'll get the discount of having a pass regardless of the system. Out in the west end, Route 77 is shared between Brampton Transit and YRT, and it has never been clear to anyone which tickets are valid under what circumstance. Under PRESTO, it won't matter - you'll get the discount of having a pass regardless of the system.
Now, back to Mr. Giambrone's Facebook post. I support, in principle, any effort to improve public transit in the GTHA. So, let's take a look at open payment.
Read more »Labels: fares, GO Transit, mississauga transit, municipal sillyness, york region transit
The best laid plans of people and patios
One of the elements that make for vibrant streets in cities is the boulevard patio. King Street West between Simcoe and Spadina, for example, is a perfect example. In the summer, patios allow restaurants to showcase their menus to passers-by and it caters to a near universal desire to get outside and enjoy the good weather. For visitors, it makes the streetscape more attractive and gives people a reason to get out of their cars and walk. For municipalities, a more successful business district means higher property values, investment and a more successful city overall.
Now, in Toronto, boulevard patios are governed by Chapter 313 of the Municipal Code for the old City of Toronto and the Vibrant Streets policy document, and approval requires that there be a 2.13m pedestrian clearway between the curb and the patio. In other words, the application will be denied if either the curb or a piece of street furniture is less than 2.13 m from the patio. This is a reasonable limitation, as a patio that takes up the entire sidewalk is counter-productive to the goal of vibrant streets. But, the next part of the Code causes things to get a bit squirrelly.
(More after the jump)
Read more »Labels: municipal sillyness, urban design
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the (b)OMB
I think
this blog post is worth re-posting in light of the protest against the decision this weekend. My stance on the issue has not changed, as I truly believe that this is the kind of development we need to turn around our neighbourhood.
We often talk about the OMB taking away our right to build the community we want to see. Well, the Heart Lake that I want to see is inclusive and offers a variety of housing for people of different family sizes and income levels. I want to see it support local businesses by growing their customer base. I want better transit, and raising density increases transit ridership which results in increased service. I want to see taxes stay low by bringing in more people to help pay for infrastructure. I want to see a place where the environment is protected by building away from the Greenbelt and pristine farmland. I want to see a place where there is no longer a disconnect between "I want to live there" and "I can live there".
The Ontario Municipal Board has not taken away our rights. In fact, the OMB has upheld our right to live in a place we've been saying we want to live in for years.
Labels: Heart Lake, municipal sillyness, urban design
City challenges OMB decision - Brampton Guardian
A while back I wrote about a controversial development proposal to put a collection of high-rises and town homes on a undeveloped lot about 10 minutes drive from my home. Last week the Ontario Municipal Board ruled in favour of the developer, ordering the City of Brampton to give the necessary planning approvals to allow the project to move forward. The city had voted to withhold those approvals, and is
vowing to continue to fight the decision. In these cases, an OMB decision can only be appealed if the board committed an error in law.
I had initially supported the project, and I do to this day. I believe that the traffic concerns can be mitigated and that the amenities in the area make this the best location for a high-density development. I don't think property values will be affected, as this development could be the catalyst to upgrade the Heart Lake Town Centre plaza - and that could mean higher property values from better nearby amenities.
In short, I think this development is good planning. Cities grow - that is an undeniable fact. When we enacted the Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act, we made a decision that growing outward was not something we wanted to do anymore. The only other direction is upwards, and it's unrealistic to think that
our neighbourhood will be exempt from the policy that we wanted put in place. If we are as committed to the environment as we say we are, we all have to chip in.
In reading my original blog post about this issue I've realized something... Back in 2007, I was fairly gung-ho about the need to reform the Ontario Municipal Board - the appeal body for matters of urban planning in Ontario. But, having just finished writing my final examination to complete my Bachelor of Urban & Regional Planning, I've realized that I've almost come full circle. We may not like the Ontario Municipal Board's decisions, but a society that only makes the popular choice usually ends up bankrupt. Somewhere along the line, we have to make the choice that betters our society - not just our impression of our society. If municipal councils choose the popular option, someone must be there to step in and make the right decision. It is for these rare occasions that we need expert panels like the OMB. I would much rather see every disputed development go to mediation to find a solution acceptable to everyone, but if that cannot be achieved, we need an independent panel of planning experts to judge what is right - in the same way we ask trial judges to help decide guilt or innocence.
Labels: Heart Lake, municipal sillyness, politics, urban design
I miss those crazy things called maps
Both
Spacing and
Torontoist are reporting that the TTC's long awaited trip planner will launch within the next two weeks. According to Torontoist, here are some of the features we can expect:
- Calculating the best route, step-by-step instructions, maps, distances and departure arrival time based on two points.
- Trip times will be based on schedules, rather than real-time data.
- The planner should recognize addresses, intersections, and landmarks.
- Selecting the best route based on maximum walking distance, accessibility needs or certain kinds modes.
- Better accuracy over MyTTC.ca.
Trip planners don't put more buses on the road, but they do make getting around the city easier by literally pointing us in the right direction. They also make transit more attractive by eliminating the "I don't know when the buses run / don't know which bus to take" argument. But, I do have two concerns over the TTC's plans.
First of all, I think that the ability to remove certain modes (buses, streetcars or subways) from a trip request is a very bad idea. It really irks me when people would rather drive all the way downtown to avoid spending 20 minutes on a bus to the train station (sorry JTS!) and I feel that allowing riders to deselect buses or streetcars (and we all know that this is what will happen) encourages (or fails to discourage) this kind of behaviour. Secondly, I feel that a mobile version is absolutely necessary, as mobile web browsers do not handle these kind of trip planners very well. Google Transit is my personal favourite, as it can use a phone's GPS chip.
Joe Clark and I have sparred over this issue in the past, but, good sir, there is no reason why you cannot have yours and I cannot have mine concurrently.
FYI,
MyTTC.ca's written directions work with mobile devices.
Labels: municipal sillyness, ttc
St. Clair streetcar anguish avoidable, study says - Toronto Star
It really irks me when people say "they won't construct ______ right in the end anyway, so we should oppose the project".
If I fail a test does it mean that I should drop out of school? No. It simply means that I need to learn from my mistakes.
According to the Toronto Star, the TTC has commissioned a review of the St. Clair streetcar right-of-way project to find out how the delays and cost escalations can be avoided when similar projects are constructed in the future. Some of the findings include a breakdown in coordination between the city, the TTC and Toronto Hydro, among others; the design changes that appeared to come "as an afterthought"; and the judicial review of the project.
With any large infrastructure project there will be disruption, but it is worth it. One cannot build a house without digging an ugly hole, and one cannot address congestion without ripping up the streets. The key is to learn from our mistakes and push forward to deliver the benefits to the community sooner.
Labels: municipal sillyness, streetcars
What's your sign?
I don't usually do this, but sometimes I need to act. I'm currently on GO bus number 2306, heading to Bramalea GO. This particular driver, I've noticed, rarely sets his destination sign correctly. It says "GEORGETOWN", but we are going in the opposite direction.
I think someone might have let the bus leave thinking that it wasn't going their way at Brampton GO. If the next bus was in a few minutes it wouldn't be an issue, but the next bus is at 3:30.
Everyone says that people don't read destination signs, but clearly people do. Obviously people should check with the driver if they are unsure, but having a correct sign helps a fair bit, no?
Labels: GO Transit, municipal sillyness
TTC steps up fight against fake passes and tokens
According to the Toronto Star, the TTC is installing new fraud detection devices in all its vehicle fare boxes and station turnstiles later next year to weed out fake passes and tokens. The new system will cost $1.5 million and will require metropass users to swipe their card when they board, but will apparently pay for themselves in less than a year due to the decrease in fare evasion.
This is all fine and good, but my fear is that they will declare "problem solved" and not commit to any other fare improvements. I have always been a big supporter of the Presto smart card currently being deployed on all of the 905 transit systems and GO Transit, and my experiences with SmarTrip in D.C. only solidified that. I believe in cutting down fare evasion, but incremental steps should not be an excuse against the move towards an integrated fare card which will have many of these anti-fraud systems already built in.
Labels: fares, GO Transit, municipal sillyness, ttc
When is an email scam not an email scam?
Late Saturday night I received an email from Ryerson University reminding us that students need an official GO Transit student ID in order to purchase and use student 10-ride and monthly passes. The discounts are on the order of 40% off the adult price, but since the card is free it couldn't hurt to apply for one even if you live in the 416. A close friend of mine has an apartment only a few minutes from campus, but she goes home to the Niagara region every other weekend. With daily GO bus service to Niagara starting in the fall, she'll be able to puchase a student 10-ride ticket and save money over the cost of Greyhound or Coach Canada. In the past, the process has been to fill out a form on campus and take it to Union Station to be validated. Uptown schools like York University have an online process where students apply online and have the card sent in the mail, and according the email, Ryerson was moving down the same direction - but there was something phisy about the communication.
Whereas York students use their online administrative management website, Passport York, to apply for the card, Ryerson was asking me to send my name and address over email. Since my email is published so that anyone reading this blog can contact me, I get a half-dozen emails every day telling me that I have won the UK national lottery / had my Chase bank account frozen / been selected to smuggle several million dollars out of Nigeria and that all I had to do is sent in my personal information. Once, I even received and email from the FBI saying that I had been implicated in a Nigerian bank scam and that I needed to send my personal information to clear my name (now that one was crafty, I must say). Suffice to say, I was very suspicious of the email.
Monday morning I contacted the University, and they were able to confirm that the email was legitimate. They said that they were planning to migrate the process to the online administrative website RAMSS, but they didn't meet the deadline and had to use this as a last resort. I'm very happy that Ryerson is moving away from the old method of applying, since this means one less hour-long line to stand in during registration week. Knowing that it isn't a scam is also great news for the people who sent in their information without a second thought. But, I really wish that Ryerson had made it look less like an email scam. It's fairly easy to disguise your email address, and seeing "@ryerson.ca" doesn't necessarily mean that the message is an official communication.
Do whatever it takes to protect your identity online, especially if you want to have good credit or if you want to be a homeowner one day. But, apply for the GO student ID card if you're eligible. It's a great way to save on daily or occasional travel.
Labels: GO Transit, municipal sillyness
Sunken treasures - or, why it has to be Google Transit
There are two main reasons why municipalities resist policy direction from upper levels of government. The first is something that I call the Fiefdom Theory - that municipal leaders know what is best for their communities and others should butt out. In many areas they do know best, but issues like development and transportation need to be addressed from a regional perspective. We are all going to have to intensify and build sustainable transportation to accommodate future growth, so there are many cases where we will need provincial policy to override a desire to stay low-density or to "do their own thing."
The other theory is an economic one - that municipal policy is expensive to develop and, in an era where most municipalities don't have a lot of money, to override carefully drafted plans is an exercise in flushing municipal cash down the drain. But again, there are times when we have to look at the bigger picture. Case in point, there are rumours that Brampton is opposed to a light rail line on Hurontario (which Mississauga seems to support) because they have sunk so much into their Acceleride rapid bus initiative. While most insiders agree that LRT is justified south of Square One, it is true that ridership begins to drop off the further north one travels. A case could be made to creep the LRT north - first to Square One, then to the new 407 park-and-ride station, then to Shoppers World - but stopping it there because of the sunken costs of an alternate proposal is not good planning.
Perhaps real reason for this post has become lost, but it's actually about trip planners. There's no question that an inability to comprehend complex schedules and transfers is a barrier to transit use, and a computerized trip planner is a good way of putting schedule information in the hands of riders. Some agencies have chosen to built their own trip planner, others have registered with Google Transit (an application inside Google Maps), and others have done both. But, there is a very good reason why we should exclusively recommend with the upmost strength the use Google Transit - the rise of the mobile internet.
Many of the in-house trip planners make heavy use of javascript and other advanced web programming languages, and these are often incompatible with the mobile browsers on Blackberry, iPhone and Android devices. With smartphones finding their way into the hands of more and more consumers, a compatible trip planner could give riders on-demand schedules and give them the confidence to leave their cars at home and explore the city. Riding from Oakville to Hamilton yesterday (and having no idea where I ended up), I used Google Transit to find transit directions from Eastgate Square back to the GO station - all while standing at a random corner in Stoney Creek. Had the Hamilton Street Railway used a in-house planner (as they once did) then this might not have been possible.
With Metrolinx and the TTC working on their own trip planners, we have an opportunity to make them more convenient for the users. Regardless of how much has been sunken into in-house planners, exporting the data in a Google-friendly format will do just what a trip planner is supposed to do - make finding schedules more convenient for users everywhere.
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
Labels: hsr, municipal sillyness, politics, ttc
Much ado about a bridge 2
In my post "
Much ado about a bridge" (which was published in the Toronto Sun best of blogs section) I talked about the showdown over the railway grade separation at Strachan Avenue, between East Liberty and Douro, just south of King.
Biking Toronto is reporting that the City of Toronto's preferred option will be carried forward. Much more expensive than raising Strachan above the railway corridor, the new plan calls for the tracks to be lowered below their current alignment and pass under Strachan. This option is the optimal solution according to the planning matrix, but it does cost $100 million more. Carrying this option forward is a sign that citizens are willing to spend more on a project when the urban design benefits will be greater, but I still wonder what would have happened if this project was being paid for entirely from the City of Toronto's capital budget. Would they have pushed for this option with as much zeal, or is this just reckless speculation?
Labels: GO Transit, municipal sillyness, politics, railways
Fair Integration?
Update:
Apparently the report I've cited for this post has been removed from the agenda of this friday's Metrolinx board meeting. As a result, I hereby base my comments on the popular opinion of the TTC held by many pro-regional transit advocates and not on the report. That's my story and I'm sticking to it...
I have long believed that an integrated fare system will be a great tool to increase transit ridership across the 905 and help alleviate congestion. Eliminating the Steeles penalty will help people like my good friend who walks to Steeles despite a YRT stop being much closer to her door. Many in this situation drive to parking lots at Finch Station to avoid this second fare. Eliminating the "too far" penalty will benefit those who are bound for locations just beyond walking distance of the GO stations within the 416. It will also allow people to use GO for inter-416 trips, reducing the peak hour demand on the subways.
2.0 PURPOSE & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the January 25, 2008 Board meeting, a resolution was referred to staff for consideration, which directed staff to develop opportunities for fare integration and service coordination (referred to as “FISC”) on cross boundary routes operating between the 905 area and the City of Toronto. Subsequent to this direction, an earlier progress report was made to the Board, which can be summarized as follows:
• A review of the cross boundary travel market between the 905 municipalities and the City of Toronto indicates that, between 1996 and 2006, transit trips to downtown Toronto increased and auto trips decreased.• There are several successful existing fare integration agreements among 905 transit systems that operate “open doors” across municipal boundaries without transit customers having to pay an additional fare through the acceptance of transfers between transit systems. “Open door” operation means that the out-of-jurisdiction carrier is free to pick up and drop off passengers as required. Waiting customers can board the first bus that comes along and no one is by-passed.
• Two key opportunities to improve transit service and reduce duplication are being considered. These are in the Burnhamthorpe Road corridor (refer to Appendix A, Figure 1), in Toronto, through having Mississauga Transit buses operate “open doors” in Toronto to Islington Subway Station and for VIVA (York Region Transit) Orange Route buses to operate “open doors” in Toronto between the Downsview Subway Station and York University (refer to Appendix A, Figure 2).
• The project study participants, comprised of two working groups, identified operational issues associated with fare validation, cost sharing agreements between the TTC and Mississauga Transit and York Region Transit and labour issues. Further work was required to evaluate and address these issues which would be part of a further Board report in the Fall of 2008.
It was not possible to make meaningful progress on these initiatives and report back to the Board in the Fall of 2008 because of labour relations issues which had to be resolved over the past few months.
With regard to the Burnhamthorpe corridor, an internal “discussion paper” has been prepared in close consultation with staff from Mississauga Transit and the TTC. It outlines the opportunity in much greater detail, such as, the potential benefits and costs, the proposed fare collection process and other operational issues to be addressed (summarized later in this report). For the Downsview Subway Station -York University corridor, most operational issues have been addressed by the TTC and York Region Transit staff. A cost sharing agreement between both of the latter parties was being discussed, but has yet to be finalized.
However, in December 2008, Metrolinx staff was advised that TTC senior management is not in favour of progressing any further, with the proposals related to “open door” service integration with Mississauga Transit and the YRT/VIVA Orange Route. This has essentially stopped any progress that can be made towards changing the current “closed door” policy (i.e. preventing transit vehicles from one municipality, from operating “open door” within a neighbouring “cross-boundary” municipality).
From the beginning of our discussions almost one year ago, Metrolinx has emphasized to working group participants that a basic principle to achieve integrated services is to design, schedule and operate transit services based on the needs of the customers regardless of municipal boundaries. During the current economic slowdown it becomes even more important to rationalize services and avoid duplication in the interest of the universal taxpayer.
Metrolinx staff was directed to develop opportunities for specific cross-boundary operations between Toronto and the 905, and the research, analysis and due diligence has resulted in recommendations that address system-wide barriers to improved cross boundary operations to the benefit of the traveller. In this report, Metrolinx staff are making several recommendations to the Metrolinx Board, to advance the objectives outlined in Big Move #6 (“region-wide integrated transit fare system”.) These proposals, “Implement a Metrolinx Integrated-Fares Pass for Cross-Boundary Services” and “Obtaining Provincial Legislative and Regulatory Authority,” outlined in section 6 of this report, are the preferred directions towards achieving fare integration and service coordination across the GTHA.
I have always believed that if the various transit agencies could cooperate and move towards regional goals then we would not need to address the governance issue. What did it matter if we had a dozen transit providers if the customer saw it and used it as one system? I have always believed that the economy, the environment and our society does not end at Steeles and that we need a regionally integrated system to ensure that the massive population increase we are expecting over the next 25 years can move around the region with relative ease. When one provider is not willing to hold a meaningful discussion about achieving these aims then perhaps it is time to address the governance issue.
Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, mississauga transit, municipal sillyness, politics, ttc, york region transit
Chateaux of Caledon plan has lots of foes in the public eye - Caledon Citizen
Every so often, a newspaper article gets published that suggests to me that the attitudes of the general public towards sustainability, better development and transportation indicate that society is doomed.
Case in point,
this article published in the Caledon Citizen yesterday.
According to a petition against the development, a proposal to build 500 homes in Caledon East was called "an excessive and unsustainable growth for the Caledon East community." I feel bad for the concept of sustainability here, as it is being taken out of context. Building low density sprawl is unsustainable. Building more units on less land is sustainable from both an environmental perspective (as it uses less land), and from a financial perspective (as a higher tax base in a small area means more revenue and less infrastructure). While this development would still be less dense than regular sprawl-type housing, it is intensification by Caledon's standards.
Of course, safety is also an issue. From the article:
One woman reflected on how Mclean's magazine had stated Caledon was the safest place in Canada earlier this year, and she feared that would change if the subdivision goes in.
"Do we need such a condensed housing development?" she asked, fearing such densities would attract crime and drugs to the area.
She also pointed out two schools are in the neighbourhood. "Innocent children and teens need protection," she said.
The woman also pointed out there are lots of activities available for kids in the village now, but adding more young people will create waiting lists, meaning some of them might have nothing else to do.
"Once it is done, and crime moves in, we cannot reverse it," she remarked.
This argument is, in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous, mildly offensive, and contradicts itself in the process. Bolton (another village in Caledon) is much more dense than this proposed development, and has several public housing developments. Is it overun by drugs and crime? NO. Is Caledon still the safest municipality in Canada even with all this supposed evil? YES.
Also from the article:
In addition, she didn't have much faith in the concept of Caledon East being a live/work/play community. It's a commuter community, she asserted, adding the part of the plan that calls for four-storey townhouses, "simply does not fit in this community."
...
The idea of the live/work units was a concern to one woman, who said she had visited a similar development in Mississauga. People there told her of problems with high turnovers, parking, deliveries, lack of storage area and snow-clearing.
"I fully believe we're making a great big mistake here," she said. "I think it's a pie-in-the-sky idea that professionals would want to live there."
Clearly, these residents feel the idea of two houses touching are just icky. Stacked townhouses are, in my opinion, an excellent way of building non-intrusive density into a project, and fit will in many places, including historic communities like downtown Woodbridge. While a 10 storey apartment building would clearly not fit in a place like that, stacked townhouses have been used very successfully to blend into the community and maintain its charm. Besides, its not the type of house that defines how well it fits into the community - it's the urban design.
Linking that comment back to the one above it, we can see another contradiction. Residents fear that a lack of businesses and services for kids will lead to crime, but don't support live/work units, which might fill the void in opportunities. While similar attempts to build live/work units have not been very successful, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It will provide opportunities for residents to access services within the community, instead of having to drive 30 minutes to Brampton or Bolton.
In addition, if it's a pie-in-the-sky idea that professionals would want to live in Caledon East, doesn't that imply that Caledon East is a bad place to live?
This article underlines the opinions of what might be a minority of people, but it's a vocal minority of people who tend to have a lot of influence in the 905. Change will come, but it will have to run against the grain and the agents of change have to be persistent.
Of course, its very difficult when the mayor calls Caledon East a walkable community. Having sidewalks doesn't make a community walkable, Madame Mayor. I will give you credit though... Caledon East does have a grocery store.
Labels: municipal sillyness, urban design
Transit in Caledon
Returning home from a friend's house at around 2 am, I spotted two Brampton Transit Novas turning south onto Highway 10 from westbound King Side Road, both filled with passengers.
Sadly, they were signed "CHARTER".
I guess it's a start...
Labels: brampton transit, daily travels, municipal sillyness
+1 for Guelph Transit
Transit Toronto is reporting that Guelph Transit will be improving frequencies on all routes to 20 minute headways this Monday, bringing an end to the insanity that has plagued the city for some time. As you might recall, Guelph Transit operates a network where all buses arrive and depart the downtown terminal at the same time, making it fairly easy to make connections. The city found that rush hour congestion was preventing buses from making the timed connection, and they decided to decrease frequencies during the peak hours to improve reliability - a move that won no applause form many in the transit community.
With 20 minute service, the community will see a more convenient transit service and higher frequencies without the loss of reliability that 40 minute service provided.
Kudos to Guleph Transit for ending this horrible experiment, and as I said to close the last post on the subject, I hope this is the last folly the citizens of Guelph ever embark upon.
Labels: guelph transit, municipal sillyness
Caledon turf war about urban sprawl - Toronto Star
An
article in the Toronto Star has a take on the development problems in Caledon, and includes a
handy map for reference.
Essentially, what it boils down to is that the Town doesn't want new development in Bolton to be greenfield development - they want new construction to be intensification within existing borders. But, in my opinion, the townspeople don't want intensification (because it is wrongfully associated with high-rise buildings), the town has demonstrated that it has no desire to force the issue, and has even taken steps to prevent intensification from occurring. In essence, the article is about where we want the urban sprawl to take place - not if we want urban sprawl at all.
So, we're back to square one.
Town council needs to separate the issues here, because developing south of Bolton and intensification within Bolton are two unrelated issues. The former can be a political issue if it wants to be, but meaningful steps has to take place to ensure the latter can occur. No one is asking to rebuild Mississauga City Centre in Bolton, and the town has to take a stand against people who fear that stacked townhouses are a sign of the apocalypse. Local transit needs to be introduced to complement the GO bus improvements that are coming soon and train service just over the horizon.
Caledon has a desire to retain its agricultural heritage, and unless meaningful intensification takes place, take a wild guess where they are going to be building houses...
Labels: municipal sillyness, politics, urban design
Council should take another look at whistle plans - Innisfil Scope
Here's an example of a
letter to the editor which makes an eloquent argument for eliminating train whistles on the Barrie GO line through Innisfil. If the crossings are indeed up to Transport Canada requirements, then I fully support the writer's position. But, the letter goes off the rails (pardon the pun) in one paragraph towards the end.
"And finally, we must remember that train whistles are like police and fire sirens that cannot be heard at a distance because the sound is travelling either at the same speed, or slower, than the vehicle giving the warning blasts."Never in my life have I ever seen a supersonic police car. Perhaps it was travelling so fast that I could not see it.
Make sure you check your letters for spelling, grammar and, of course, factual correctness.
Labels: GO Transit, municipal sillyness, railways
Mississauga Transit picks up its baseball in frustration and leaves the park after it strikes out
Mississauga Transit Operators to Announce All Bus Stop Locations
On June 1, 2008, Mississauga Transit operators will begin announcing all bus stop locations to help passengers of all ages and abilities.
In particular, starting on June 1, 2008, Mississauga Transit operators will be required to manually announce all bus stop locations on routes where the next stop, bus stop signs have been completely installed. The signage is being installed on our busiest routes first.
The route-by-route implementation schedule is outlined below:
Effective June 1, 2008: Routes 1 – Dundas and 19 – Hurontario.
Effective June 15, 2008: Routes 3 – Bloor and 26 Burnhamthorpe.
Effective June 29, 2008: Routes 5 – Dixie and 7 – Airport.
Effective July 13, 2008: Routes 13 – Glen Erin and 61 – Mavis.
Our web site will be updated regularly as next stop, bus stop sign installation is completed and additional routes are added to the list of routes where Mississauga Transit operators are required to manually announce all bus stop locations. On routes where the next stop, bus stop signs have not been completely installed, Operators are required to announce the bus stops located at major intersections and terminals, or at the passenger’s request.
By the late fall of 2008 next stop, bus stop sign installation is targeted to be completed on all of our routes, and Mississauga Transit operators will be required to manually announce bus stop locations, system wide.
For safety reasons, our valued customers are reminded not to speak to our transit operators while the bus in motion. As well, our customers are advised to please be patient since our buses may be making more frequent stops, to allow our transit operators to safely make the bus stop announcements.
“We recognize the diverse needs of our passengers, and this enhanced level of accessible service will help passengers enjoy travelling on our buses”, says Director of Mississauga Transit, Geoff Marinoff.
Essentially (as I understand it), if the operator doesn't know the name of the next stop then the bus will be comming to a full-and-complete stop for the street sign to be safely read.
This will not "help passengers enjoy travelling" on Mississauga buses. This reeks of classic tactics used to undermine an unpopular order. In my opinion, this is a work-to-rule aimed at having the province institute clear policy on calling stops, or (and more likely), getting them to fund next-stop information systems for all buses. Every other transit agency has complied with the Human Rights Commission ruling without this becoming an issue - with all due respect, Mississauga needs to suck it up.
Labels: mississauga transit, municipal sillyness
