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
Thoughts on priorities
Once upon a time, most of the employment lands were located downtown and most of the residential lands were located uptown. It was fairly easy to plan the transportation network, because travel would always be downtown in the morning and uptown in the afternoon. Whichever line was the most crowded deserved an upgrade. Today, we live in a very complex region with travel patterns that resemble a spider web. There are plenty of jobs downtown, but a large number of office parks and factories are now located in the 905. There are plenty of houses in the suburbs, but more and more people are now living downtown. This has made prioritizing the lines much more difficult.
Under the old paradigm, the people in Markham would benefit from more GO Transit service because they would be going downtown. In today's world, however, is it better to invest in more GO service towards Toronto, or to invest in better VIVA service within the town?
This blog post isn't about which transit line should be our top priority - I don't think we will ever receive consensus on that topic. This is, however, a post about where small projects should fit in the capital budgets of the various transit providers.
Read more »Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, politics
Can subways build a transit city?
Rob Ford, Toronto's incoming mayor, was elected on a platform that called for subway construction instead of light rail construction. From the people I have spoken to, many are concerned about the future of Transit City, David Miller's initiative to build a series of light rail lines across Toronto. While there are many good reasons to forge ahead with Miller’s plan, what if we could build these proposed lines as subways. Are we still building Transit City?
Transit City became synonymous with light rail transit, but in many ways, the modal choice was the means to an ends. For transit city, the end goal was to add capacity and reliability to locally-oriented transit and to support constant strings of mid-rise development along Toronto's avenues. In essence, the true goal of Transit City was to transform suburban arteries into more vibrant, successful streets where people can live, work, play and shop. It was a project to urbanize the suburbs and attract investment by making these lands just as attractive for development as the downtown core. If subways can build a transit city, then these are the standards by which a subway plan must be measured.
Read more »Labels: GTTA plan, light rail, politics, streetcars, subways, ttc
Thoughts on a city
A city is not something that can be voted against. It cannot be downsized, streamlined or economized. A city is an idea that lives in our hearts. Though paint may not be spread nor foundations be dug nor trees be planted, the spirit of Toronto cannot and shall not be extinguished.
I choose to remain, for I must. I shall not abandon my post in her hour of need. Though we fear that our doom is upon us, let us rally around the words of John Paul Jones: "I have not yet begun to fight!"
Labels: politics
Thoughts on the intertubes
When I first started blogging, a lot of the ideas that I proposed were influenced by what I read on sites like Urban Toronto and the Canadian Public Transportation Discussion Board. I don't know if the quality of discussion has changed or if I have changed, but I feel that those venues (and others like the official Facebook and Twitter pages for the transit establishments and newspaper article comments) have become filled with comments about how every endeavour to improve transit is an epic failure, a pork barrel project, or a general waste of time and money. Generally speaking, it's quite rare that a viable alternative emerges from this discourse.
As a planner in the digital economy, I'm left wondering what the effects on public consultation will be as it moves online onto these venues where unwavering opposition can drown out other opinions. If my perception of the quality of discourse is accurate, I fear that agencies will become less responsive to the public demands. We must create solutions to the problems we face as a society, but in the absense of constructive criticism, it is likely that the solution will not be implemented at all, or it will be implemented as proposed without changes. The result is no one being happy and everyone being mad at the planning process.
Read more »Labels: comments, politics, urban design
Thoughts on a tweet
@mfac19 tweeted:
@mayormiller prevent the TTC from wasting the precious $$ on studies for payment systems when the province is handing it to you on a platter
@mayormiller tweeted:
@mfac19 Disagree. TTC wants to let you use your credit card and other systems; Province wants one system, and TTC to pay$300 million for it.
From my perspective, we need to keep in mind the greater policy objective. The narrow policy objective is to minimize costs and maximize output for yourself and those you care about. You can't really fault anyone for having this mentality. However, the greater policy objective of region-wide transit integration is what matters here. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the environment, the economy and our quality of life doesn't care about Steeles. One region, one system should be the goal. Anything above and beyond that greater policy objective is fine by me. Anything below that greater policy objective is a recipe for disaster.
Labels: fares, politics, ttc
Thoughts on transit platforms
With the Toronto mayoral election campaign in full swing, here are my thoughts on the transportation related issues that are at play.
Read more »Labels: cycling, light rail, politics, streetcars, subways
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
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
Suicide barriers a waste of TTC money - Toronto Star
I don't know why, but I find myself mostly disagreeing with most of the posts in the Toronto Star's Your City, My City series. The
most recent post is about the plan to install suicide barriers at selected subway stations, and the writer feels that the money is better spent lowering the fares or hiring observers to watch for distressed individuals on the platform. The first part is nowhere near true, as a one-time $30 million injection (the value of this project) would only lower fares a few cents for a few months. The second part has merit, but we have to consider all of the benefits of suicide barriers:
- They prevent suicides and accidental death by physically preventing people from jumping in front of the train.
- They improve the subway's people-moving capacity. Generally, automated train control is necessary to ensure the train's doors line up with the barrier's doors. This automated control system will allow the trains to operate much closer together than would be safe with humans in control, and higher frequencies (not higher speeds!) means higher capacity.
- They almost eliminate the delays caused by trash blowing onto the electrified rail and igniting, triggering the trackside smoke detectors. Unless there is a fire in a nearby building, this is the likely cause of the near daily 10-15 minute delays on the subway.
Suicide barriers don't seem like a good investment on face, but when one considers all the benefits it begins to seem like a pretty good value.
Labels: politics, subways, ttc
All things private and public
The issue of privatising the TTC has come back into the news in the last few days, and I would like to take this opportunity to announce my opinion on the subject:
I don't care.
Some background, after the jump:
Read more »Labels: politics, union/management
Dispatches from Vancouver: A Canada Line for Toronto - Torontoist
Over at Torontoist, you'll
find an article on Vancouver's rapid transit line connecting the airport with the downtown core. In the comment section, though, I wasn't surprised to find comments that oppose our under-construction airport link, the Union-Pearson Rail Link (UPRL).
It's easy to rally against the project, but lets not forget that the corridor upgrades necessary to accommodate the line will give us frequent GO Trains that will eventually stop at a station near Woodbine Racetrack. From there, the Finch West LRT is to provide the last leg of the trip to the airport. This combination could adequately serve those who aren't served by the UPRL.
Personally, I'm indifferent to the UPRL. I might not want to pay a premium fare to get to the airport, but I can think of many people who will. It has been argued that airport employees won't be able to afford it, but what's stopping the Greater Toronto Airport Authority from negotiating a discount rate for the workers? Either way, one under-performer shouldn't torpedo the implementation of improvements to a handful of well-used corridors.
Labels: politics, railways
Are anti-LRT activists being railroaded? - Toronto Star
A Toronto Star article identifies a group of residents on Sheppard Avenue east who have some concerns about the LRT currently under construction. While it's good that there are people who care about their neighbourhood, what concerns me is that one of the quotes that appeared in the paper. Assuming that it was not been taken out of context, I worry that there is a bit of misinformation about the speed that the LRT is going to travel at.
"You get in the car and you go 60 kilometres per hour and you get on the streetcar and you go 12 kilometres per hour," said [Patricia] Sinclair [of Save Our Sheppard].
"If you're trying to pull people on (transit) and you're trying to get less traffic, you've got to give them transit they will use. Where is the analysis of not just the costs but the benefits?"
First of all, the speeds quoted by the City of Toronto are the average speed, including the time it takes for stops. Even though the posted speed limit is 60 km/h (and the speed the trams will travel at is 60 km/h), the only way you can maintain that speed is if there were no traffic and no stop lights. The average speed, taking these factors into consideration, is much lower for both traffic and the LRT. And, for the record, the LRT will average around 22 to 25 kilometres per hour. This is faster than the 85 SHEPPARD EAST bus and has a higher capacity. The only way to increase end-to-end speeds is to increase the distance between stops, but fewer stops means a very inconvenient walk for those who are destined for locations in between stops.
Secondly, the analysis of the costs and benefits are available in several documents on the City of Toronto and Metrolinx's websites.
The article points out that everyone wants subways, and while there is a acknowledgement that they cost more, there is a desire to let development pay for it. This is how it works in Hong Kong, but this is because the transit authority has a development arm. If we want the development to pay for subways, we need to overhaul our political culture:
- First, we need to change our opinion that government should not compete with the private sector. This is the only way it can gain the same degree of development powers - the power to purchase entire districts and redevelop them - that Hong Kong has.
- Second, we need to change our opinion that stable neighbourhoods should not be redeveloped, In order to get development to pay for these subway lines we then we will need to do more than just build on strip mall parking lots. We will have to redevelop entire neighbourhoods adjacent to the artery in question.
- Third, we need to accept high-rise, high-density development in our cities. We seem to have a fear of highrises, but the revenue from the mid-rise development planned will not be enough to pay for a subway line.
I'm not saying that we should enact any or all of the above, but we do need to understand what it will take to have the kind of subway network that many Asian cities have enjoyed for years.
Sorry Theo.
Labels: light rail, politics
Just sayin'...
Whereas it has been
said that:
"Transit City never intended to address travel to the core area as that function has been left primarily to GO Transit, but to provide higher capacity and somewhat higher speed service to the growing suburban 416 areas. It is totally inappropriate to criticize a plan for omitting something for which it was never intended."
Is it truly appropriate to go on to apply the same level of criticism to a regional transit plan that was intended to direct the provision of regionally-significant rapid transit, rather than fund and/or direct the provision of transit at the locally-oriented level.
My utmost respect, but I'm just saying...
Labels: GTTA plan, politics
No Thanks
If elected to the office of Mayor of The City of Toronto, Rocco Rossi will
stop the planned transit expansions and stop the implementation of the Toronto Bike Plan.
No thanks.
I doubt he has the legal authority to stop the new LRT lines from being constructed, as they are matters of provincial policy, but still...
No thanks.
He says he only wants to put these plans "on hold", but still...
No thanks.
I think I might have seen campaign promises like these before...Labels: politics
Presto update
As an update to yesterday's post, TTC staff are now recommending that the commission approve the system-wide implementation of the Presto smart card. While there is no funding and there are conditions this is more of an approval-in-principle, but it's a very promising sign that the largest stumbling block is moving out of the way.
Labels: fares, politics, ttc
Toronto congestion costs Canada $3.3 billion: OCED
According to
new study by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, congestion in the GTA costs just over $3 billion every year in lost productivity. While the Toronto Board of Trade came to the same conclusion a few years ago, what is getting airplay in the media is that the report advocates for road tolls and congestion charges to serve as a transportation demand management tool. By increasing the cost to drive on our most congested roadways we may be able to shift commuter onto alternate routes, alternate times and alternate modes that aren't as clogged. Those who absolutely must drive into congestion would then pay the true cost of commuting (the environmental, health, social and industrial, and not just the cost of building and repairing roads through property taxes).
Road tolls are unpopular, and I'm not going to deny it - Human behaviour is to try to minimize things that cause us harm and annoyance. Any discussion on road tolls is usually met with a statement somewhere along the lines of "not until public transit is improved." Yes, we should increase the coverage, frequency and speed of public transit in the region, but I often wonder what level of service will be necessary before we have "enough" public transit. Is it the 25-year plan? The 50-year plan? The 100-year plan? Is "not until public transit is improved" just a stall tactic to defer the debate indefinitely?
Labels: politics
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
Question of the day
Whereas our quality of life, the economy and the environment do not recognize municipal boundaries, should our transportation policies reflect local interests or regional interests? While there are situations where both needs can be accommodated through a single well-designed policy - like adding a few local stations to a long-distance rail line - there are situations where a the goals of a municipal government might run counter to the goals of a good regional transportation system. For example, a municipality may not want local buses, but getting them could be a regional goal. A unified fare system is a regional goal, but it's no surprise that support and opposition varies by municipality.
When the new legislation governing Metrolinx explicitly allows the province to issue transportation policy statements, there is a strong possibility that mandatory directives will come from Queens Park - be they welcomed or not. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Discuss with examples.
Labels: politics
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
