I hear you. Thank you so much for pushing for better transit throughout the years!
With that, welcome to a fundamental issue in media and politics : others will actively mischaracterize you. It stings. A little empathy goes a long way, which you show so well by pointing out Rob Ford's nuances in your piece. That is absolutely a great example of someone most people immediately form into a caricature.
Also, I really appreciate how your discussion of transit has gotten more nuanced over time. It's helped you be an even better advocate for improved mobility.
In Tokyo, transit is funded by real estate development. That is, the transit company buys lands, builds a transit line, develops housing at high density around new stations, and uses the profits to do that over and over.
I feel the main argument against subways is that they are supremely expensive (especially in the English speaking world for some reason). However, if subway expansion was self-funding, people would whole-heartedly support its expansion - except for NINBYs but you’ll never win them over.
Toronto, and Canada’s other cities, really need to study and implement the self-funding transit model. That would take much of the politics out of the issue.
To some extent you are correct about Tokyo, though I think people oversimplify how this works. There is more traditional funding at play and other unique circumstances.
I actually think funding is less of an issue than you're making it out to be, Toronto for example has all the funding in the world but still cannot deliver!
We need to make ALL transit move faster. I have never heard Reece or other serious advocate argue otherwise. Yes, buses need to be included in that essential approach. No, subways are not the full answer, but nobody is seriously arguing that they are. Those arguing that speeding up transit is a war on cars, as opposed to the only viable way of making cars move faster, do not count as serious.
Light rail/tram/streetcar, like anything else, is a question of implementation. Have you reasonably implemented a proper signal priority? If cars that have a capacity of 200+ people are routinely waiting for single-occupant vehicles turning left the answer is likely no. If they are routinely stopping at a light and waiting more than a few seconds, immediately prior to a transit stop, when they are not ahead of schedule the answer probably no. The problem is, the TTC has a broader problem with this, including on St Clair and Spadina. See far too often vehicles stopping for red, waiting a full signal, immediately before a transit stop.
It seems there are spots where the stop is between the vehicle detector and the signal, so it cannot reasonably predict vehicle arrival. Signals should be reasonably short, with as few left turns as possible (allow for marked 3 rights). LRT generally has space for pedestrian islands, so it is possible to design intersections to support partial crossing. 1 minute total signal, means about 25 seconds for green, 35 of wait max, and would also mean even 5-second stretches in either direction would materially reduce waiting. However, system needs to know where vehicle is, and actually provide priority for that to happen. I suspect that with even reasonable signal priority the Finch LRT would be radically faster. Expect the same would be true on Spadina, and Steve Monroe had articles discussing the remarkable degree to which the St Clair route speeds degraded, as the city slowly stopped supporting strong signal priority.
If Paris treated its trams with the priority that Toronto does, I dare say they would be similarly bad. Transit priority is a question of political priorities. If the goal is to move people, not vehicles, I suspect that routes like Finch West, Spadina, and St Clair could be made radically faster, simply be relocating some detectors and implementing moderate signal stretches to favor transit.
The reality is, in too much of the city, the same arguments would apply to buses. The real issue is the expectation that you can address traffic by worrying about moving more vehicles, instead of moving more people faster. Get LRTs and buses keeping up, or even moving faster than cars, and watch how fast traffic improves, as people transfer between modes.
'If they are routinely stopping at a light and waiting more than a few seconds, immediately prior to a transit stop, when they are not ahead of schedule the answer probably no.'
Note that buses in Toronto do not "automatically" stop at every stop, and the Toronto legacy system is also not an all-stopper.
Is it true that street transit in Toronto can only be ahead of schedule if a stop where no one is waiting was not requested?
In Paris, only buses stop on request, trams, like the metro and the R.E.R just stop all stops, however, at least the trams do not "automatically" open their doors at all stops.
A common arrangement in European cities that actually kept their trams is where pressing a button on a pole both requests a stop and later opens a passenger operated door.
It is ridiculous to have a vehicle with 100 people on board, having to stop twice well within 100 meters. It increases the probability of vehicle bunching, especially in situations of long signals and frequent vehicles. If the vehicle has to wait a minute, on 3 minute service frequency, that greatly increases the odds of also having to service the stop, relative to the vehicle who got a green, and did not have to wait.
If people arrive randomly at the stop, the odds of getting to skip the stop are affected by having to wait or not for the green. Slows the vehicle a little more, opening time between it and the vehicle in front, increasing odds for all stops having people waiting.
In Paris, trams just stop at them all, there is no stop request system, they are required too stop at all stops just like the metro, so people arriving randomly at a stop (even with dedicated lanes and the best priority) does not affect the odds of skipping a stop at all.
Metros never have request stops nor would it be a good idea.
Even if a streetcar were required to stop to at every stop, the number of people boarding and alighting would affect dwell time. Toronto, not all cars are required to stop at every stop.
I think the root problems are: 1) Not enough people in these debates ride transit for general purposes. Sure, you might ride to get downtown, or for a 9-5 job, but are you trying to get cross-town to a shift at 3:30 in the afternoon? Totally different experience - speed and frequency are much more critical for some trips than others. 2) Way too much focus on infrastructure instead of looking at service quality: speed, reliability, frequency, destinations served, connections made. 3) Lining up against the Ford brothers' ideas, on principle. I did #3 for a long time, too. It is apparent that Toronto needs all types of transit, including lots of real rapid transit.
From what I can tell, transit debates in Canada are generally weak, although Toronto is next level. I think the 'transit as aesthetics' group that loves trams on their own is a small group, but potentially over-involved in the debate. There's even a small group who is explicitly against fast transit, to promote local-ness. Like you, I think high-quality LRT (C-train) or quality trams can be fantastic. But they are a tool. Speed is not the only thing, but it's big.
There is also a small group that leans against stop consolidation in street transit, but not against better priority and more dedicated lanes, see for example an article by the Melbourne Public Transport Users Association called 'Myth: Tram passengers benefit from fewer tram stops'.
that is a classic question of degree. Stop consolidation, where stops are 200 or fewer meters apart, seems a no-brainer (unless you are serving a large group of people who are mobility impaired). However, at 500-600 meters, it starts to get tough. In Toronto, there is a massive amount to be gained
'Stop consolidation, where stops are 200 or fewer meters apart, seems a no-brainer (unless you are serving a large group of people who are mobility impaired).'
The Melbourne Public Transport Users Association contests this, check the article and see what you think of it.
Toronto has all kinds of people defending stops that are rarely used and stupid close to other stops. Where the time between stops is less than the dwell time at a stop. If you can walk it in less than 2 minutes or most of a 3 or 4 minute walk is the result of waiting on signals (which the tram will also have to do), that seems ridiculous. Save 1 person 1 minute at the expense of 50 people waiting 45 seconds, should be an equation that is well understood. Increasing walk time from 2.3 minutes to 4 minutes, means losing 1.7 minutes (about 100 seconds) for 1 person.
It is in my experience that total dwell, including wait to open the doors and hold after boarding and alighting, is rarely much under 20 seconds. That means you are for argument's sake, in a lightly loaded 30-meter car, asking for 50 people to wait 20 seconds. So, to save one person 100 seconds, you are asking the collective to sacrifice a net of 900 seconds... Seems very odd math to me
Do any of those people claim that even the time savings from removing all those stops would only be marginal?
I have trouble following much of this comment.
'Increasing walk time from 2.3 minutes to 4 minutes, means losing 1.7 minutes (about 100 seconds) for 1 person.'
Don't quote me on this but the Melbourne P.T.U.A claims that walking time is perceived as having a "cost" two to three times greater than time spent in the vehicle.
Does Toronto have people claiming that making people walk further is not "cheap"?
Should we improve priority before increasing stop spacing? Better priority and more dedicated lanes can make the service faster without more walking distance.
Would really depend on the route and options, I guess. The near side stop spacing common in Toronto seems to be a big problem that would make better signal priority less effective. So in that case stop changes and better signal priority go together. But if it was, you can do one thing ... signal priority and priority lanes/ queue jumps would be a bigger win.
I'm actually commenting on Toronto from afar, although I was kind of wowed by the tight streetcar stop spacing when I was there in the summer.
Not so as priority could be inserted by the driver, as is done, for example, on Parramatta light rail.
Note: Like many second generation systems, and unlike the legacy system in Toronto, both Sydney light rail systems are all stoppers (there is no stop request system), so people arriving randomly at a stop does not affect the odds of just passing by a stop at all, even with the best priority.
"I think the 'transit as aesthetics' group that loves trams on their own is a small group, but potentially over-involved in the debate"
^ Exactly this. ^
Over-involved in the media coverage and access to politicians as well, I'd add.
"There's even a small group who is explicitly against fast transit, to promote local-ness."
^ Exactly this as well. ^
Worse, the group "explicitly against fast transit", promoting "local-ness" seems to have been embedded in Toronto city and transit planning departments* for decades now - which imo is precisely how we ended up spending $4B on a tram slower than humans on two feet, let alone biking or taking the bus.
*e.g. Giambrone's Transit City (which was falsely advertised as "Rapid" when it was clearly nothing of the sort), and Keesmaat's focus on maintaining as many local stops as possible to re-invigorate neighbourhoods: https://vimeo.com/85759245
I note that almost no-one (if anyone, in fact) in Toronto transit planning ever bothers to ask commuters/passengers what *they* want from transit. I'm sure there would be a variety of responses - with safety newly high on the list these days - but on the ground what you most hear, and have heard since forever, is 'door to door commute time' which translates to SPEED on the portions of their commute that is over long distances.
And yet - beyond falsely labelling local trams as "Rapid" in the proposal/design/funding stage - speed/commute time never seems to be anywhere on the list of requirements for new transit projects, never mentioned as a concern until slow projects have already been delivered, and those warning about this from the beginning only ever given coverage after it's - again - too late to do anything about it.
Thanks for the link to Jarrett Walker's response to Robert Stuetville and slow transit - that's exactly what I was thinking about but couldn't find! I haven't seen his discussion with Keesmat. I'm mixed on Keesmat over-all. Sure we want people to HAVE to move less, but labour markets are not local at all. Some trips are going to have to move across the region, and letting that happen on transit provides freedom and options.
I don't have the time or stamina, but it would be interesting to lay out the timeline of what was proposed for Transit City and what got built and operated. And what political, institutional, and technical decisions got made that turned potentially-useful-Transit City-trams into slower-than-buses-trams now running on Finch. While in retrospect it was never actually going to be rapid transit, I feel like somewhere in these convos or online someone quoted initial operating speeds as closer to 20 km/ hour, which would have been much more palatable.
Or - what was Transit City spin (LRT to replace subway!) versus poor execution.
If Toronto wants to build more subway lines (which it should do), we need to address the absolutely absurd cost per km in the Anglosphere. Changing LRT for subway isn't a 1-for-1 exchange because the cost jumps so high when you make that step, you need to make sure it'll be worth spending (for the Ontario Line it definitely will be, for some of the proposed LRTs probably not - look at the Sheppard Line).
As for Rob Ford, he didn't champion subways because he was pro-rapid transit. He championed subways over LRT because he wanted those damn transit users out of the way of the precious cars. He also argued that subway construction would mean no road/lane closures like LRT construction would, something laughably false. The retconning of Rob Ford's legacy lately has gotten on my nerves because he was an awful person and awful politician whose damage will be affecting Toronto for decades.
I don't think its accurate to say that Ford only championed subways because he was pro rapid transit, the streetcars were slow and the subway was fast in Fords day, and there were plenty of progressive admins who could have shifted that dynamic and did not!
As for the Sheppard line, it's low ridership is mostly down to it being a small segment of a larger line without the rest of the line, naturally that puts downward pressure on it's use!
If it takes a car-loving mayor going out of his way to protect precious cars in order to construct the amount of subway service that Toronto ultimately needs, sign me up. Every subway line will far outlast a single mayorship and fundamentally change the city's transit infrastructure. This is not a defense of Ford—I wouldn't give him credit for a single subway line, built or under construction. But in a city where the most egregiously absent form of transportation is rapid public transit, we'd all benefit from co-opting the line of "subways, subways, subways."
The single greatest strategic failure of (North American) public transit advocates is the inability (or perhaps refusal) to communicate to the everyday drivers of personal vehicles just how and why rapid public transit is also in the best interest of drivers—not just transit users.
It's an analogy I am sure, and it's not a song about ideology - but I think the deeper question Billie Holliday is asking is why we can't accept that people are complicated.
I think this is the problem that a lot of Torontonians (especially people from Etobicoke..) have.
They have the mentality of being a small city, in a time where the municipality is exponentially growing. We constantly think of the short term, instead of the long term benefits of having Rapid Transit.
Karen Stintz, as a means of making Eglinton Crosstown "cheaper" short-term, decided to make the eastern portion elevated instead of having it underground. Not only does this make service harder to run, and eliminates the possibility of converting Crosstown to be a Light Metro, but it continues to brew the thinking that Scarborough gets snuffed when it comes to public transit.
Though, I also think that the constant shredding & lack of long term transit goals is a huge benefactor of breeding this rhetoric. For well over two decades, we've proposed, ripped apart, cancelled, then propose a new plan in a cyclical manner that gets people so frustrated to the point where they just want things built, no matter what.
Instead of coming to the realisation that everyone WANTS public transit, but can't decide on what to do, makes planning expensive. Eglinton was supposed to be cheaper when the TTC had full control over designing Crosstown, but when the new plan arose, so did costs.
I find that those who continue to post articles & opinions like that of Spacing, don't really see what's out there in the world, and don't take Public Transportation seriously. They need to get out of the "build anything" mindset, and focus on building what works for a city of this caliber. We are not the Toronto that existed 40 years ago.
They also forget that Yonge-University was built when Toronto had 20% of the population it has now.
I do not think you have the history entirely right with Stintz etc. That being said, it's clearly the case that we have a really distorted view of how big Toronto and the region is, and this shapes nonsensical transit plans that aren't adapted for the needs of most in the region, even today!
From what I remember, Rob Ford's tenure wanted Crosstown to be fully underground. However, Stintz, then TTC Chair was the main voice behind pushing forward with having Crosstown's alignment to be that of Mayor Miller's plan. She evenigot her wish after Council voted for her motion to keep the Scarborough portion above ground.
You are correct; I did omit that David Miller originally wanted Crosstown's Scarborough section to be above-ground. Though, I was mostly trying to illustrate & further add to your Toronto Star article (which was a nice read, btw) that we had a pivotal moment with Transit that was muddled by short term thinking.
Thanks for your hard work, and positive reply (I find the internet to be quite negative, but it's great that there are places that are civil.)
As is the spirit of the article, a problem with Toronto, if you look at ridership pretty much all of our streetcar lines should be underground or a subway. Toronto is dealing with a massive underinvestment for the ridership in the city which goes unrecognized.
I don't think this is really accurate. Lots of trams in other cities move *more* people than our streetcar lines - significantly more, and there is not a rush to turn them into subways. This idea that trams aren't valuable by themselves is something Rob Ford was clearly wrong about.
I hear you. Thank you so much for pushing for better transit throughout the years!
With that, welcome to a fundamental issue in media and politics : others will actively mischaracterize you. It stings. A little empathy goes a long way, which you show so well by pointing out Rob Ford's nuances in your piece. That is absolutely a great example of someone most people immediately form into a caricature.
Also, I really appreciate how your discussion of transit has gotten more nuanced over time. It's helped you be an even better advocate for improved mobility.
The internet does not like nuance!
Thanks for all you do RM.
Thanks for reading.
Really good piece Reece.
I wonder, isn’t it possible, at least hypothetically, to use express buses as forms of rapid transit?
Express buses can outpace cars in the right conditions, particularly on highways, but its certainly harder when theres not a dedicated right-of-way!
In Tokyo, transit is funded by real estate development. That is, the transit company buys lands, builds a transit line, develops housing at high density around new stations, and uses the profits to do that over and over.
I feel the main argument against subways is that they are supremely expensive (especially in the English speaking world for some reason). However, if subway expansion was self-funding, people would whole-heartedly support its expansion - except for NINBYs but you’ll never win them over.
Toronto, and Canada’s other cities, really need to study and implement the self-funding transit model. That would take much of the politics out of the issue.
To some extent you are correct about Tokyo, though I think people oversimplify how this works. There is more traditional funding at play and other unique circumstances.
I actually think funding is less of an issue than you're making it out to be, Toronto for example has all the funding in the world but still cannot deliver!
We need to make ALL transit move faster. I have never heard Reece or other serious advocate argue otherwise. Yes, buses need to be included in that essential approach. No, subways are not the full answer, but nobody is seriously arguing that they are. Those arguing that speeding up transit is a war on cars, as opposed to the only viable way of making cars move faster, do not count as serious.
Light rail/tram/streetcar, like anything else, is a question of implementation. Have you reasonably implemented a proper signal priority? If cars that have a capacity of 200+ people are routinely waiting for single-occupant vehicles turning left the answer is likely no. If they are routinely stopping at a light and waiting more than a few seconds, immediately prior to a transit stop, when they are not ahead of schedule the answer probably no. The problem is, the TTC has a broader problem with this, including on St Clair and Spadina. See far too often vehicles stopping for red, waiting a full signal, immediately before a transit stop.
It seems there are spots where the stop is between the vehicle detector and the signal, so it cannot reasonably predict vehicle arrival. Signals should be reasonably short, with as few left turns as possible (allow for marked 3 rights). LRT generally has space for pedestrian islands, so it is possible to design intersections to support partial crossing. 1 minute total signal, means about 25 seconds for green, 35 of wait max, and would also mean even 5-second stretches in either direction would materially reduce waiting. However, system needs to know where vehicle is, and actually provide priority for that to happen. I suspect that with even reasonable signal priority the Finch LRT would be radically faster. Expect the same would be true on Spadina, and Steve Monroe had articles discussing the remarkable degree to which the St Clair route speeds degraded, as the city slowly stopped supporting strong signal priority.
If Paris treated its trams with the priority that Toronto does, I dare say they would be similarly bad. Transit priority is a question of political priorities. If the goal is to move people, not vehicles, I suspect that routes like Finch West, Spadina, and St Clair could be made radically faster, simply be relocating some detectors and implementing moderate signal stretches to favor transit.
The reality is, in too much of the city, the same arguments would apply to buses. The real issue is the expectation that you can address traffic by worrying about moving more vehicles, instead of moving more people faster. Get LRTs and buses keeping up, or even moving faster than cars, and watch how fast traffic improves, as people transfer between modes.
'If they are routinely stopping at a light and waiting more than a few seconds, immediately prior to a transit stop, when they are not ahead of schedule the answer probably no.'
Note that buses in Toronto do not "automatically" stop at every stop, and the Toronto legacy system is also not an all-stopper.
Is it true that street transit in Toronto can only be ahead of schedule if a stop where no one is waiting was not requested?
In Paris, only buses stop on request, trams, like the metro and the R.E.R just stop all stops, however, at least the trams do not "automatically" open their doors at all stops.
A common arrangement in European cities that actually kept their trams is where pressing a button on a pole both requests a stop and later opens a passenger operated door.
It is ridiculous to have a vehicle with 100 people on board, having to stop twice well within 100 meters. It increases the probability of vehicle bunching, especially in situations of long signals and frequent vehicles. If the vehicle has to wait a minute, on 3 minute service frequency, that greatly increases the odds of also having to service the stop, relative to the vehicle who got a green, and did not have to wait.
I have trouble following you on this.
If people arrive randomly at the stop, the odds of getting to skip the stop are affected by having to wait or not for the green. Slows the vehicle a little more, opening time between it and the vehicle in front, increasing odds for all stops having people waiting.
Still some trouble following this.
In Paris, trams just stop at them all, there is no stop request system, they are required too stop at all stops just like the metro, so people arriving randomly at a stop (even with dedicated lanes and the best priority) does not affect the odds of skipping a stop at all.
Metros never have request stops nor would it be a good idea.
Even if a streetcar were required to stop to at every stop, the number of people boarding and alighting would affect dwell time. Toronto, not all cars are required to stop at every stop.
I think the root problems are: 1) Not enough people in these debates ride transit for general purposes. Sure, you might ride to get downtown, or for a 9-5 job, but are you trying to get cross-town to a shift at 3:30 in the afternoon? Totally different experience - speed and frequency are much more critical for some trips than others. 2) Way too much focus on infrastructure instead of looking at service quality: speed, reliability, frequency, destinations served, connections made. 3) Lining up against the Ford brothers' ideas, on principle. I did #3 for a long time, too. It is apparent that Toronto needs all types of transit, including lots of real rapid transit.
From what I can tell, transit debates in Canada are generally weak, although Toronto is next level. I think the 'transit as aesthetics' group that loves trams on their own is a small group, but potentially over-involved in the debate. There's even a small group who is explicitly against fast transit, to promote local-ness. Like you, I think high-quality LRT (C-train) or quality trams can be fantastic. But they are a tool. Speed is not the only thing, but it's big.
There is also a small group that leans against stop consolidation in street transit, but not against better priority and more dedicated lanes, see for example an article by the Melbourne Public Transport Users Association called 'Myth: Tram passengers benefit from fewer tram stops'.
that is a classic question of degree. Stop consolidation, where stops are 200 or fewer meters apart, seems a no-brainer (unless you are serving a large group of people who are mobility impaired). However, at 500-600 meters, it starts to get tough. In Toronto, there is a massive amount to be gained
'Stop consolidation, where stops are 200 or fewer meters apart, seems a no-brainer (unless you are serving a large group of people who are mobility impaired).'
The Melbourne Public Transport Users Association contests this, check the article and see what you think of it.
Toronto has all kinds of people defending stops that are rarely used and stupid close to other stops. Where the time between stops is less than the dwell time at a stop. If you can walk it in less than 2 minutes or most of a 3 or 4 minute walk is the result of waiting on signals (which the tram will also have to do), that seems ridiculous. Save 1 person 1 minute at the expense of 50 people waiting 45 seconds, should be an equation that is well understood. Increasing walk time from 2.3 minutes to 4 minutes, means losing 1.7 minutes (about 100 seconds) for 1 person.
It is in my experience that total dwell, including wait to open the doors and hold after boarding and alighting, is rarely much under 20 seconds. That means you are for argument's sake, in a lightly loaded 30-meter car, asking for 50 people to wait 20 seconds. So, to save one person 100 seconds, you are asking the collective to sacrifice a net of 900 seconds... Seems very odd math to me
Do any of those people claim that even the time savings from removing all those stops would only be marginal?
I have trouble following much of this comment.
'Increasing walk time from 2.3 minutes to 4 minutes, means losing 1.7 minutes (about 100 seconds) for 1 person.'
Don't quote me on this but the Melbourne P.T.U.A claims that walking time is perceived as having a "cost" two to three times greater than time spent in the vehicle.
Does Toronto have people claiming that making people walk further is not "cheap"?
At least close stop spacing provides a clear benefit - less walking distance. I support wider spacing but I see where they are coming from.
Should we improve priority before increasing stop spacing? Better priority and more dedicated lanes can make the service faster without more walking distance.
Would really depend on the route and options, I guess. The near side stop spacing common in Toronto seems to be a big problem that would make better signal priority less effective. So in that case stop changes and better signal priority go together. But if it was, you can do one thing ... signal priority and priority lanes/ queue jumps would be a bigger win.
I'm actually commenting on Toronto from afar, although I was kind of wowed by the tight streetcar stop spacing when I was there in the summer.
Not so as priority could be inserted by the driver, as is done, for example, on Parramatta light rail.
Note: Like many second generation systems, and unlike the legacy system in Toronto, both Sydney light rail systems are all stoppers (there is no stop request system), so people arriving randomly at a stop does not affect the odds of just passing by a stop at all, even with the best priority.
So it would be the driver triggering the signal priority, not an automatic hold of a green light or early green light?
Signal priority is far from my area of expertise.
"I think the 'transit as aesthetics' group that loves trams on their own is a small group, but potentially over-involved in the debate"
^ Exactly this. ^
Over-involved in the media coverage and access to politicians as well, I'd add.
"There's even a small group who is explicitly against fast transit, to promote local-ness."
^ Exactly this as well. ^
Worse, the group "explicitly against fast transit", promoting "local-ness" seems to have been embedded in Toronto city and transit planning departments* for decades now - which imo is precisely how we ended up spending $4B on a tram slower than humans on two feet, let alone biking or taking the bus.
*e.g. Giambrone's Transit City (which was falsely advertised as "Rapid" when it was clearly nothing of the sort), and Keesmaat's focus on maintaining as many local stops as possible to re-invigorate neighbourhoods: https://vimeo.com/85759245
I note that almost no-one (if anyone, in fact) in Toronto transit planning ever bothers to ask commuters/passengers what *they* want from transit. I'm sure there would be a variety of responses - with safety newly high on the list these days - but on the ground what you most hear, and have heard since forever, is 'door to door commute time' which translates to SPEED on the portions of their commute that is over long distances.
And yet - beyond falsely labelling local trams as "Rapid" in the proposal/design/funding stage - speed/commute time never seems to be anywhere on the list of requirements for new transit projects, never mentioned as a concern until slow projects have already been delivered, and those warning about this from the beginning only ever given coverage after it's - again - too late to do anything about it.
https://humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-walking-distance-to-transit.html
https://humantransit.org/2014/07/email-of-the-day-on-robert-steutevilles-defense-of-slower-than-walking-transit.html
Thanks for the link to Jarrett Walker's response to Robert Stuetville and slow transit - that's exactly what I was thinking about but couldn't find! I haven't seen his discussion with Keesmat. I'm mixed on Keesmat over-all. Sure we want people to HAVE to move less, but labour markets are not local at all. Some trips are going to have to move across the region, and letting that happen on transit provides freedom and options.
I don't have the time or stamina, but it would be interesting to lay out the timeline of what was proposed for Transit City and what got built and operated. And what political, institutional, and technical decisions got made that turned potentially-useful-Transit City-trams into slower-than-buses-trams now running on Finch. While in retrospect it was never actually going to be rapid transit, I feel like somewhere in these convos or online someone quoted initial operating speeds as closer to 20 km/ hour, which would have been much more palatable.
Or - what was Transit City spin (LRT to replace subway!) versus poor execution.
Yeah, sorry for what happened to you. Politics is a blood sport.
If Toronto wants to build more subway lines (which it should do), we need to address the absolutely absurd cost per km in the Anglosphere. Changing LRT for subway isn't a 1-for-1 exchange because the cost jumps so high when you make that step, you need to make sure it'll be worth spending (for the Ontario Line it definitely will be, for some of the proposed LRTs probably not - look at the Sheppard Line).
As for Rob Ford, he didn't champion subways because he was pro-rapid transit. He championed subways over LRT because he wanted those damn transit users out of the way of the precious cars. He also argued that subway construction would mean no road/lane closures like LRT construction would, something laughably false. The retconning of Rob Ford's legacy lately has gotten on my nerves because he was an awful person and awful politician whose damage will be affecting Toronto for decades.
I don't think its accurate to say that Ford only championed subways because he was pro rapid transit, the streetcars were slow and the subway was fast in Fords day, and there were plenty of progressive admins who could have shifted that dynamic and did not!
As for the Sheppard line, it's low ridership is mostly down to it being a small segment of a larger line without the rest of the line, naturally that puts downward pressure on it's use!
If it takes a car-loving mayor going out of his way to protect precious cars in order to construct the amount of subway service that Toronto ultimately needs, sign me up. Every subway line will far outlast a single mayorship and fundamentally change the city's transit infrastructure. This is not a defense of Ford—I wouldn't give him credit for a single subway line, built or under construction. But in a city where the most egregiously absent form of transportation is rapid public transit, we'd all benefit from co-opting the line of "subways, subways, subways."
The single greatest strategic failure of (North American) public transit advocates is the inability (or perhaps refusal) to communicate to the everyday drivers of personal vehicles just how and why rapid public transit is also in the best interest of drivers—not just transit users.
In politics especially, there's a lot of bad actors and ignorance. Even transit is political so you're gonna have people misrepresenting your views.
Idk the best way to cut across the noise but this won't be the first or last it happens
For sure, I'm non-partisan and that makes everything weird. I'm willing to admit when *anyone* implements a policy which is good for transit.
This is really a case study of how ideological fixations happen: the narrowing of the view of a given person into a logical-categorical set. It brings to mind "All of Me." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J18k5Sx3Dw&list=RD5J18k5Sx3Dw&start_radio=1
Why does it bring to mind the song!
It's an analogy I am sure, and it's not a song about ideology - but I think the deeper question Billie Holliday is asking is why we can't accept that people are complicated.
I think this is the problem that a lot of Torontonians (especially people from Etobicoke..) have.
They have the mentality of being a small city, in a time where the municipality is exponentially growing. We constantly think of the short term, instead of the long term benefits of having Rapid Transit.
Karen Stintz, as a means of making Eglinton Crosstown "cheaper" short-term, decided to make the eastern portion elevated instead of having it underground. Not only does this make service harder to run, and eliminates the possibility of converting Crosstown to be a Light Metro, but it continues to brew the thinking that Scarborough gets snuffed when it comes to public transit.
Though, I also think that the constant shredding & lack of long term transit goals is a huge benefactor of breeding this rhetoric. For well over two decades, we've proposed, ripped apart, cancelled, then propose a new plan in a cyclical manner that gets people so frustrated to the point where they just want things built, no matter what.
Instead of coming to the realisation that everyone WANTS public transit, but can't decide on what to do, makes planning expensive. Eglinton was supposed to be cheaper when the TTC had full control over designing Crosstown, but when the new plan arose, so did costs.
I find that those who continue to post articles & opinions like that of Spacing, don't really see what's out there in the world, and don't take Public Transportation seriously. They need to get out of the "build anything" mindset, and focus on building what works for a city of this caliber. We are not the Toronto that existed 40 years ago.
They also forget that Yonge-University was built when Toronto had 20% of the population it has now.
Great write up, Reece.
I do not think you have the history entirely right with Stintz etc. That being said, it's clearly the case that we have a really distorted view of how big Toronto and the region is, and this shapes nonsensical transit plans that aren't adapted for the needs of most in the region, even today!
From what I remember, Rob Ford's tenure wanted Crosstown to be fully underground. However, Stintz, then TTC Chair was the main voice behind pushing forward with having Crosstown's alignment to be that of Mayor Miller's plan. She evenigot her wish after Council voted for her motion to keep the Scarborough portion above ground.
You are correct; I did omit that David Miller originally wanted Crosstown's Scarborough section to be above-ground. Though, I was mostly trying to illustrate & further add to your Toronto Star article (which was a nice read, btw) that we had a pivotal moment with Transit that was muddled by short term thinking.
Thanks for your hard work, and positive reply (I find the internet to be quite negative, but it's great that there are places that are civil.)
Best regards,
Being a public advocate is hard. We love the perseverance though. Keep up the good work!
As is the spirit of the article, a problem with Toronto, if you look at ridership pretty much all of our streetcar lines should be underground or a subway. Toronto is dealing with a massive underinvestment for the ridership in the city which goes unrecognized.
I don't think this is really accurate. Lots of trams in other cities move *more* people than our streetcar lines - significantly more, and there is not a rush to turn them into subways. This idea that trams aren't valuable by themselves is something Rob Ford was clearly wrong about.