[jje1000]

The ONLY responsibility of transit is to get people from A to B as quickly, comfortably, safely, and reliably as possible.
It is NOT the responsibility of transit to create "complete streets", liveable communities, or vibrant neighbourhoods. Those things are the responsibility of the city's urban planning dept.

Ideally they should work together but when push comes to shove the only thing transit should be worried about is moving people to where they need to go. Transit can certainly help create vibrant communities and that is a very welcome spinoff but the TTC's
1st, 2nd, and 3rd priorities is effective transit. When transit systems over riding concern starts to become creating communities then they have overstepped their mandate. This is very similar to enviornmental reviews.

Over the years enviornmental reviews have gone from being precisely that to now including community participation, urban planning etc. They have absolutely nothing to do with those things. Their ONLY responsiblity is to ensure that any project {whether transit or not} will be constructed in an enviornmentally safe manner. Toronto has blurred those responsibilities. This is why many people who have concerns about projects bring them up with enviornmental review panels which they have nothing to do with. St.Clair was a stellar example of where enviornmental reviews turned into political events yet there should be absolutely nothing political about them.

Transit authorities should focus on nothing except transit and leave the urban planning dept to the City.

You need higher continuous densities to generate the traffic needed for a subway. Otherwise, you're basically throwing money into a black hole of a transit line that'll only generate density at far-apart stops. If you've conveniently forgotten, the Yonge and Bloor lines were streetcars long before they became subways.

And slower commute times? The LRT isn't going to make commutes any slower than they already are.

 

[gweed123]

That's the purpose of the Greenbelt now.
All the planning documents of the time indicate that the greenbelt was designed to constrain the urban area, intending to avoid Toronto style sprawl. They didn't take into account that the rise of the automobile (and construction of the 417) enabled easy commuting through the greenbelt. I doubt many people would move out to Kanata if they were still commuting downtown on the old Richmond Rd streetcar.

As far as I can tell, the NCC had a crisis of conscience in the 90s, when they realized the plan had completely and totally failed. It opened the door for developers to start lobbying to carve off little sections here and there to build on. I believe the NCC has since strengthened their resolve, under the new principle of "capital in the garden".

It's true that the Greenbelt was initially designed with a "build to here than no further" purpose. But the reality is that the majority of the inner-greenbelt area is developed, aside from a few pockets. Is it as dense as it should be? No.

I personally love the Greenbelt, it does a great job of breaking up the city, and as a kid I used to go for walks in the woods around Jack Pine trail, which was 10 minutes from my house. In Toronto, you'd need to go a long way out to find an open space like that.

On the topic of Ottawa, they definitely need to begin to untangle the busses there. The current system is great for going to the Transitway, and by extension downtown, but suburb-to-suburb is still very difficult. Kanata to Barrhaven can still require 3 transfers.

The introduction of the LRT system in 2018 is going to really alter how the buses run. I suspect that the Kanata and Barrhaven Transitway buses are going to be linked via Lincoln Fields (once the western extension is up and running).

The system is going to basically be redesigned from scratch when the LRT comes into being.

But I agree that Barrhaven to Kanata is a pain in the ass by transit. I actually did Baseline to Kanata last week because my friend was having a bar night at the Centrum. I spent 45 mins on the 118, just to avoid having to go 118-95-97.

 

[gweed123]

The ONLY responsibility of transit is to get people from A to B as quickly, comfortably, safely, and reliably as possible.
It is NOT the responsibility of transit to create "complete streets", liveable communities, or vibrant neighbourhoods. Those things are the responsibility of the city's urban planning dept.

Ideally they should work together but when push comes to shove the only thing transit should be worried about is moving people to where they need to go. Transit can certainly help create vibrant communities and that is a very welcome spinoff but the TTC's
1st, 2nd, and 3rd priorities is effective transit. When transit systems over riding concern starts to become creating communities then they have overstepped their mandate. This is very similar to enviornmental reviews.

Over the years enviornmental reviews have gone from being precisely that to now including community participation, urban planning etc. They have absolutely nothing to do with those things. Their ONLY responsiblity is to ensure that any project {whether transit or not} will be constructed in an enviornmentally safe manner. Toronto has blurred those responsibilities. This is why many people who have concerns about projects bring them up with enviornmental review panels which they have nothing to do with. St.Clair was a stellar example of where enviornmental reviews turned into political events yet there should be absolutely nothing political about them.

Transit authorities should focus on nothing except transit and leave the urban planning dept to the City.

Transit Planning and Land Use Planning are inherently linked. Looking at one in isolation from the other is a recipe for disaster.

Just look at the Places to Grow Act and the Big Move overlaid overtop of each other. It's no coincidence that the "Growth Centres" are also transit hubs.

 

[spider]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

The ONLY responsibility of transit is to get people from A to B as quickly, comfortably, safely, and reliably as possible.
It is NOT the responsibility of transit to create "complete streets", liveable communities, or vibrant neighbourhoods. Those things are the responsibility of the city's urban planning dept.

Ideally they should work together but when push comes to shove the only thing transit should be worried about is moving people to where they need to go. Transit can certainly help create vibrant communities and that is a very welcome spinoff but the TTC's
1st, 2nd, and 3rd priorities is effective transit. When transit systems over riding concern starts to become creating communities then they have overstepped their mandate. This is very similar to enviornmental reviews.

Over the years enviornmental reviews have gone from being precisely that to now including community participation, urban planning etc. They have absolutely nothing to do with those things. Their ONLY responsiblity is to ensure that any project {whether transit or not} will be constructed in an enviornmentally safe manner. Toronto has blurred those responsibilities. This is why many people who have concerns about projects bring them up with enviornmental review panels which they have nothing to do with. St.Clair was a stellar example of where enviornmental reviews turned into political events yet there should be absolutely nothing political about them.

Transit authorities should focus on nothing except transit and leave the urban planning dept to the City.

Couldn't have said it better!

 

[ssiguy2]

Transit Planning and Land Use Planning are inherently linked. Looking at one in isolation from the other is a recipe for disaster.

Just look at the Places to Grow Act and the Big Move overlaid overtop of each other. It's no coincidence that the "Growth Centres" are also transit hubs.

I agree.
Urban planning and transit are linked and should not be viewed in total isolation. The problems arise not when they work together but rather they begin to take over each other's responsibilites. This results in stupid ideas of the TTC creating transit corridors not to move people but to help poorer areas.........all of a sudden the TTC turns from a people-moving organization to social services.
This also leads to decisions to have LRT lines going down the middle of the road which will creatly reduce speed, reliability, and increase cost as opposed to using the Hydro corridor which is only a block away.

Miller will say that that inbits medium density urban development along the street which is a complete lie. There is NOTHING stopping the city from promoting that right this minute. This kind of thinking also leads to LRT down a roadway which will greatly increase operational costs because the city thinks that a commerical/industrial zone will all of a sudden become a bohemian wonderland with the introduction of an LRT as opposed to logically elevating the line....aka Eglinton. If transit was left to transit providers then the TTC would be making use of it's current rail corridors. Toronto is the only place on the planet that goes out of it's way to avoid using it's already existing infrastructure to provide transit service.

Ideally the 2 departments should work together but a transit providers ONLY responsibility is to take people to where they want to go.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Ideally the 2 departments should work together but a transit providers ONLY responsibility is to take people to where they want to go.

I agree with you to an extent, but I think you will see that that's already the position of the transit providers in the GTA. In fact, I would argue they're too far on this side already to the point of completely missing the point. Look at GO - they have the opportunity to work with planning departments in various cities to build mixed use TOD and real transit nodes, but seem hellbent on just building giant park and rides in industrial wastelands.

 

[M II A II R II K]

What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership: Rail Edition


Jun 08, 2012

By Eric Jaffe

Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/co...creasing-transit-ridership-rail-edition/2218/


If you're a mid-sized metro area whose only form of public transportation is the bus, you might increase transit ridership just by tweaking the system. Lose a stop here, add one there, draw a few new maps. That worked for Broward County, Florida, which recently grew its passenger base by shifting its focus on job centers rather than downtown districts, but what if you're a big city with a major rail system? It's a bit harder for a conductor to steer the subway into another neighborhood.

- Big cities that want to increase ridership have a few larger policy options to consider. They might subsidize fares (that is, cover operating expenses that exceed the system's revenue). They might regulate automobile use (say, through congestion pricing or tolling). Or they might expand the rail system that's already in place. These aren't exactly simple efforts—the politics will be tough, the implementation expensive, the outcomes scrutinized—so you better choose wisely.

- On an average, a 10% extension of a city rail network generates an increase in transit use of almost 3% and a decrease in automobile use of more than 2%. We further concluded that regulation of automobile use and possession via policies such as road pricing and taxes on car acquisition also have a positive impact on transit patronage. In cities that have implemented effective regulation of this type, the use of cars has dropped by an average of 20–30% while transit use has risen in similar proportions. Lastly, we found no evidence that fare subsidies encourage the use of transit as an alternative to private cars, corroborating previously published research on the issue.

.....

 

[rbt]

Lastly, we found no evidence that fare subsidies encourage the use of transit as an alternative to private cars, corroborating previously published research on the issue.

The $400M/year subsidy the TTC currently receives is enough funds to cover the DRL over a 10 year period. It may be worth reconsidering the operating subsidy and directing more into capital.

 

[doady]

Yeah, let's get rid of all operating subsidies for transit, because the amount of transit service has absolutely no effect on transit ridership.

 

[rbt]

Yeah, let's get rid of all operating subsidies for transit, because the amount of transit service has absolutely no effect on transit ridership.

The report above indicated price has the least impact on ridership. Service, particlarly coverage area of that service, had the highest impact.

If you eliminate operating subsidies by increasing the standard fare for most riders by about 40% then that $300M/year can be directed toward capital expansion. In 10 years this could pay for most of the DRL without assistance from the province or 3 surface LRT lines roughly equal to Finch or Sheppard proposals.

Some riders (~5%) who require a fare subsidy because they cannot pay for it, would actually get a lower fare of about $1.50 as I would keep about $100M/year going toward fare subsidies for those who require one.

 

[sixrings]

Are you suggesting 4$ fares?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The $400M/year subsidy the TTC currently receives is enough funds to cover the DRL over a 10 year period. It may be worth reconsidering the operating subsidy and directing more into capital.

That would just allow even more political influence in capital (read expansion) spending. Subsidize the operational costs and let the commission decide how and where to spend expansion dollars.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Are you suggesting 4$ fares?

No need to suggest it...$4 fares is going to happen

 

[doady]

The report above indicated price has the least impact on ridership. Service, particlarly coverage area of that service, had the highest impact.

If you eliminate operating subsidies by increasing the standard fare for most riders by about 40% then that $300M/year can be directed toward capital expansion. In 10 years this could pay for most of the DRL without assistance from the province or 3 surface LRT lines roughly equal to Finch or Sheppard proposals.

"Least impact", not "no impact". Raising fares would still reduce ridership, and reduced ridership means less fare revenue. Raising fares is diminishing returns. TTC cost recovery is around 70%, so taking ridership loss into account you'd have to increase fares by 50% or 60% or more, assuming ridership does not fall even further. The cash fare would have to be $5 and that still might not be enough.

I think you have it backwards. Instead of reducing fare subsidies (raising fares) for capital expansion, you do capital expansion to make transit more efficient and allow for a reduction of operating subsidies. Transit in places like Tokyo have low or nonexistent operating subsidies because they have a highly developed transit infrastructure, not the other way around.

It would make more sense to fund transit expansion through things like road tolls, parking lot tax, gas tax, etc.

 

[mpd618]

...Lastly, we found no evidence that fare subsidies encourage the use of transit as an alternative to private cars, corroborating previously published research on the issue.

Yeah, this is BS. The study is between-cities and is subject to all kinds of other factors. In many cities the farebox recovery (which is what they use) is low because there are "coverage" goals of transit, namely to provide some basic level of transit as a social service. This has nothing to do with fares.

For that matter, transit ridership is not very elastic, but that doesn't mean it won't go down when fares go up. It takes time for people to adjust their transportation choices, so you just might not see the effect in the first year after a fare hike. But there are likely to be plenty of people in that first year who put the purchase of a car on their list.

P.S. The study cites this Wendell Cox article in perfect seriousness, as if it were a peer-reviewed publication.