[freshcutgrass]

You keep saying "majority" as if it's an accepted truth, which I question

Do you honestly believe that the majority of vehicles on the roads (and my main concern here is 416 city streets) are delivery/service vehicles and out of province visitors? Com'on.

No...I don't have any hard data at hand (I'm sure it exists somewhere), but I really don't see the point in bothering...I think it is pretty obvious. It's just common sense that if we have these morning and afternoon congestion problems, it just might have something to do with people commuting to and from their stationary place of work.

The people who drive their cars to work in the 416 that live in the 416, obviously could have taken public transit without any problems....they have no excuse...they just prefer their private vehicles. The people who originated in the 905 also could have taken transit, but would more likely have a less convenient time doing so (because the 905 has very poor transit infrastructure).

My point is, that if the people who have a choice to take transit instead of their private vehicles did so, we would have enough capacity on the roads to accommodate those that don't have a choice and surface public transit vehicles without the congestion.

Whether it's a good tool or affordable tool or environmentally friendly tool may be up for debate - but whether it is or isn't a tool is not. It certainly IS one of the tools available.

It is not a tool to decrease congestion. If it were, the proof would be in the pudding. Increasing freeway capacity just attracts more cars until it reaches the same equilibrium. It's crazy to argue this point, as every time it is done, we end up in the same place. The reason is enough people are willing to pay the the price in their time. Sure...they bitch & moan about it....but there they are anyway.

If you want to reduce congestion, the trick is not to make people pay with their time...but with their wallets. When you have to pay for what you use, the game changes. Take a wild guess which freeway has the least congestion problems (if any at all).

Like I said...the proof is in the pudding.

And there's another problem with adding freeway capacity....where it empties its contents. While you can add more lanes to existing freeways and build new ones, you can't add any more city streets. What's the point in increasing the number of cars that can reach the city, if the city streets can't handle them? And please don't say that adding freeway lanes will mean the same amount of cars that have more room to move...we've already been through that.

You don't think drivers do pay the real cost of owning and operating their own vehicles? Or do you mean the real cost of roadway construction and maintenance, or other indirect costs?

Yes, of course I mean to use public infrastructure (unless you just have a car to look at in your garage? ).

Not only do drivers pay every level of property, sales and income tax as everyone else

That's the problem right there...."as everyone else".

Private vehicles take up 99% of the road space
Private vehicles account for 99% of the accidents (and delays associated)
Private vehicles are responsible for 99% of the wear and tear of the roads
Private vehicles are responsible for 99% of the need to police the roads
Private vehicles are responsible for 99% of the road pollution
Private vehicles are responsible for 99% of the injuries, deaths and property damage on the roads

Do private vehicle owners pay 99% of the costs associated with this?

No....they pay "the same as everyone else".

And as we become a less and less car dependant city, the more car drivers are going to have to bear the full brunt of this. All people like Rob Ford can do is delay the inevitable (where it will be worse in the long run).

they also pay rather large % of taxes on the fuel they put into their cars, which generates far more tax revenue than is used for roads, infrastructure, snow cleaning, hell - even the cost of emergency services in the case of accidents.

That's quite laughable

It doesn't matter though, as fuel is just a commodity you purchase that you pay taxes on...it isn't a form of public infrastructure. I buy bananas, cigs and booze....woop-dee-doo.

Since drivers should be expected to pay the full cost of their chosen method of transport, would you also be in support of transit users also paying the full cost of their choice? Ie: the full cost of infrastructure, maintenance, operations, fuel, etc... or should this be subsidized by drivers (as it is), or subsidized by general revenues (which it is). I'm not saying transit shouldn't (it certainly should be subsidized), but question your double standards

.

First of all, there is no double standard here. As it stands, nobody pays user fees to use public roads (with the exception of the 407, which is no longer public anyway). Your car is not public infrastructure, so any costs associated with buying, fuelling, maintaining or insuring your private property is irrelevant to the topic.

Public transit is also a public infrastructure, where user fees account for anywhere between 60% to 80% of the operating cost of running that public infrastructure.

There's nothing wrong with charging users fees for some public infrastructure, because when you pay based on what you use, you tend to be less wasteful of public infrastructure.

Since our road space has a big problem (over use), it is only logical to start charging a user fee on that too. That way the least efficient users are paying for what they use, while increasing the popularity of the most efficient use of our roads.

If the streetcar itself is low or zero emissions, but slows down cars by 10, 20 or hell 50%, does it not indirectly increase the emission of a far greater number of vehicles stuck behind it?

Let's get something straight...a streetcar has zero emissions...end of story. All this talk of indirect pollution is so illogical, it really shouldn't dignify a reply. The road isn't congested because it has streetcars on it...it's congested because 99% of the road is full of private vehicles. Again...the same old story....blaming the most efficient users of the road for congesting the road. Yea...the streetcar has to stop...perhaps we should invent one that doesn't pick up or drop off passengers? But the other 99% of the road users still stop and turn, delaying everyone behind them.

If it's zero emission, then maybe for the sake of the environment, the streetcar is the one that should idle?

I can only hope that was a joke.

 

[Thanos]

The people who originated in the 905 also could have taken transit, but would more likely have a less convenient time doing so (because the 905 has very poor transit infrastructure). If you want to reduce congestion, the trick is not to make people pay with their time...but with their wallets. When you have to pay for what you use, the game changes. Take a wild guess which freeway has the least congestion problems (if any at all).

This is exactly what i've been saying. The 905 hasn't been helping the situation and depend on Toronto and the TTC to solve the problem.
If the 905 had better public transit that connected to the TTC subways then that would be the perfect situation.
Bare with me because i'm not original from Toronto and don't know the northern suburbs that well yet. Now, if Vaughan and Richmond Hill had LRTs running down 3 of the following streets (Jane, Keele, Dufferin, Bathurst, Yonge or Bayview) and had them connect with TTC LRTs that would connect to subways that would help the issues with the northern suburbs. Vaughan and Richmond Hill can influence developpers to use those main roads for future development.

I also had a question regarding the Vaughan extension. Would these users from Vaughan pay the same fees as the Toronto TTC users? I'm asking this because in Montreal the subway extension in Laval has the Laval users paying 50% higher fees.

 

[ttk77]

I also had a question regarding the Vaughan extension. Would these users from Vaughan pay the same fees as the Toronto TTC users? I'm asking this because in Montreal the subway extension in Laval has the Laval users paying 50% higher fees.

I'm not so sure this is clear yet. I take transit from the Toronto waterfront up to Vaughan every day for work. The TTC does run some sufrace routes in the York region (contracted by the YRT I believe) and when crossing Steeles you need to pay a full extra fare. I would assume they'd try to do the same thing with the subway, but I'm not sure how that would work logistically. Thankfully there's a nifty GTA weekly pass which allows unlimited travel on all GTA transit systems (excluding GO), so I don't have to worry about it too much.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Presto is supposed to sort out all those fare boundary issues but Metrolinx has been very quiet about specifics on how this will work.

I'd speculate that it's because they're working on a region-wide fare-by-distance scheme and they don't want that turned into a political football. ("Dalton McGuinty wants to HIKE your transit fares!")

 

[JoeParez]

This is exactly what i've been saying. The 905 hasn't been helping the situation and depend on Toronto and the TTC to solve the problem.
If the 905 had better public transit that connected to the TTC subways then that would be the perfect situation.

The 905 doesn't depend on the TTC. There is Zum, Viva, YRT and GO all feeding Downsview and Finch Subway Stations. The TTC is contracted to run their buses north of Steeles and those going in that direction pay the extra fare. The 905 actually has excellent transit and the improvements made over the past 7 - 10 years has been incredible. The subway extension was only part of a series of phases; it just so happens that York Region got the extension sooner than expected.

Bare with me because i'm not original from Toronto and don't know the northern suburbs that well yet. Now, if Vaughan and Richmond Hill had LRTs running down 3 of the following streets (Jane, Keele, Dufferin, Bathurst, Yonge or Bayview) and had them connect with TTC LRTs that would connect to subways that would help the issues with the northern suburbs. Vaughan and Richmond Hill can influence developpers to use those main roads for future development.

Maybe you should check this out: vivaNext

It outlines all the Viva transit related projects in the 905; up next is BRT along Highway 7 and Yonge and after that will be LRT on Don Mills, Leslie and Jane. If you read the website fully I believe you'll get a sense of what's going on up north of Steeles and so far unlike our counterparts to the south, Toronto (no offense ) the transit projects are moving along very smoothly and get little to no backlash from residents, at least that's what I see. Maybe this will calm some of the suburban stereotypes.

And as a 905er; I hope to provide the good people of UrbanToronto some insight to the mind of a 20 something living north of Steeles. I have to use my car for work, but I don't have to use it for play, in fact I've made so many strides in the past two years to decrease the use of my car outside of having to go to work.

 

[Thanos]

It's a great plan. I knew Markham was pushing forward though i always had doubts about Vaughan and Richmond Hill. Though after reading quickly from other sources as well, it seems to be moving slowly. Other than provincial funding what are the communities doing to get the necessary funding?
Now with a plan such as that, why is Richmond Hill asking to have the Yonge line pushed north. I see that as a waste of money. Is the grey line running up on Yonge supposed to be the subway?
http://www.vivanext.com/system_map
Also, Toronto had a transit plan, though it needed some tweeking. We both know what happened to that.
What about the eastern suburbs? Will they rely on GO? And if so, what's the issue with GO? I have too many people at work living out in Ajax and Pickering who still drive to work.

 

[Marko]

This will be a long one - I apologize in advance.

And it should be the last tool used.

Last tool sure - but still a tool. To say it's not an option at all is silly.

No they do not. The property and sales income tax is paid by everyone regardless of car or not. Large % of fuel tax? You gotta be kidding me. Look at BC and Quebec who both have better transits and Europe as well. The fuel taxes are much higher. You are not paying your share as a driver. Higher fuel taxes, road tolls, etc are needed.

Fuel taxes generate some $13 billion a year across Canada. Ontario's population being about 37% of the country, that puts the take at about $4.8 billion. The GTA is about half the province, so let's call it $2.4 billion in tax revenues generated right in the GTA. Don't tell me that drivers don't contribute their fair share to cover the costs of driving - and that's just fuel taxes. Add in licensing fees, taxes on their vehicles, taxes on their insurance and that number goes way up.

Is $2.4 billion a year spent on roads and highway infrastructure? What sort of transit infrastructure do you suppose $1.2 billion a year (half) could build? This is what fuel taxes should be paying for. Better roads AND better transit.

Transit users are paying their share with the ridiculously high transit fees and lack of infrastructure. You really don't understand the long term benefit of better public transit.

The true cost of a transit ride is about double what the user pays. I understand just fine and happen to AGREE that transit needs to be subsidized - but don't sit there and pretend it's not, while driving is.

It will keep the road infrastructure costs lower as the roads see less traffic, faster commute times, etc. Does your time matter that little to you?

Is there an echo in here?

I'm all for efficiency and emission reduction, regardless of which technology is used. Better transit = fewer drivers = less traffic = less polution, but one is not more important than the other, they must be carefully balanced. Drivers should support the notion of better transit because it gets more drivers off the road they're on, shortens their own drive time and reduces their emissions. Transit users should support good roads and highways, since it means even their buses and streetcars will move faster and remember that driver revenues (mostly gas taxes) subsidize that seat they're sitting on, even if it's a subway car or train.

You're assuming that the car is somehow keeping you on the road.

...bla bla bla...

I've been thinking that maybe the best solution for Ontario is to allow a few private transit companies to open up and operate throughout the GTA.

I'm assuming nothing, but you're doing a fine job of assuming I'm some anti-transit wacko and speaking down to me as such.

I agree about the private transit companies. People can complain all they want about the 407 being sold off when it could have been a permanent revenue generator - but without PPP money it never would have been built in the first place. You want better transit infrastructure in Toronto, open it up to private investment.

Do you honestly believe that the majority of vehicles on the roads (and my main concern here is 416 city streets) are delivery/service vehicles and out of province visitors? Com'on.

Where did I say this? Don't put words in my mouth.

My point is, that if the people who have a choice to take transit instead of their private vehicles did so, we would have enough capacity on the roads to accommodate those that don't have a choice and surface public transit vehicles without the congestion.

Possible, but it's fairy tale thinking considering the complete and utter lack of transit infrastructure in place. LRTs are great for localized transport, but if you really want people to choose to get out of their cars, you don't make their 30 minute drive into a 90 minute transit trip in overcrowded buses and streetcars. Express trains and subways are the higher level transit needed, not more streetcars moving 20 km/h.

It is not a tool to decrease congestion. If it were, the proof would be in the pudding. Increasing freeway capacity just attracts more cars until it reaches the same equilibrium. It's crazy to argue this point, as every time it is done, we end up in the same place.

See first comment above. You can debate it all you want, but it takes 20 or 30 or 40 years for the new capacity to reach equilibrium - it's called population growth - unless you're going to argue that transit usage actually goes down? The fact is that people and goods need to travel routes that transit is simply inefficient at moving and this will always be the case.

If you want to reduce congestion, the trick is not to make people pay with their time...but with their wallets. When you have to pay for what you use, the game changes. Take a wild guess which freeway has the least congestion problems (if any at all).

The 407 reaches congestion at many points during the day. Of course it's more open than say the 401 - it's more out of the way. That said, you're right about pricing them out of their cars - but you might be pricing them right out of their jobs and educations too.

That's the problem right there...."as everyone else".

Private vehicles take up 99% of the road space

...more 99% assertions...

Do private vehicle owners pay 99% of the costs associated with this?

No....they pay "the same as everyone else".

99% huh? lol. Fine, let's go with that.

Absolutely drivers do pay more. They pay the same as everyone else for police and emergency services, but the fuel taxes ($13 billion a year) would more than pay for the cost of building and maintaining those roads, not to mentioning licensing fees, taxes on vehicle related spending, etc... you can't deny $13 billion in revenue generated.

First of all, there is no double standard here. As it stands, nobody pays user fees to use public roads (with the exception of the 407, which is no longer public anyway). Your car is not public infrastructure, so any costs associated with buying, fuelling, maintaining or insuring your private property is irrelevant to the topic.

$13 billion in fuel taxes - plus who knows how much more in other revenues - is not irrelevant at all. Of course the car is not infrastructure, neither is my bike or your banana - the point is that the revenues generated by the activity itself are substantial enough that the cost of private transportation comes a lot closer to paying for itself than transit does - and that's OK - just don't sit there and claim the opposite is true.

Public transit is also a public infrastructure, where user fees account for anywhere between 60% to 80% of the operating cost of running that public infrastructure.

So? I never said it wasn't infrastructure and I never said that users don't contribute to it - of course they do, as they should. Drivers also do, as they should, but the revenues should be more dedicated to actual transportation costs - including transit.

Let's get something straight...a streetcar has zero emissions...end of story. All this talk of indirect pollution is so illogical, it really shouldn't dignify a reply.

You realize that each streetcar uses 260,000 - 272,000 Watts to move its 81,000 lb (empty) weight around, right? Electricity is NOT a zero emissions technology, and it's getting more and more expensive.

Do you have any clue how much power this is on a daily, monthly or yearly basis? One streetcar uses as much power in one hour as the average family home does in 28 years. I don't know how many cars on each of the 11 lines at any given time, but let's say 4 as a minimum. It's probably triple during peak hours, but let's go with 44 cars. 44 streetcars operating 18 hours a day works out to over 75,000,000 kW/h - or 75,000 mW/h -or 75 gW/h... for a whopping 1.7 gW/h per day, which is equal to carbon footprint of about 650,000 lbs - PER CAR, PER DAY.

I may be off, of course - as the actual transmission costs, etc are not readily available. I'm going by the 4*65kW or 2*135kW ratings on the streetcars we use, and multiplying from there. if someone in the know can confirm or correct these numbers - I think we all really would benefit from knowing the actual numbers. The fact remains that while a streetcar is of course better than 100 cars - duh - it's anything BUT zero emissions.

Go ahead and preach your dogma, though, freshcutgrass.

Since our road space has a big problem (over use), it is only logical to start charging a user fee on that too. That way the least efficient users are paying for what they use, while increasing the popularity of the most efficient use of our roads.

So you just spelled out exactly how the double standard works. Thanks

 

[Ak2809]

Would be interested to see how our streetcars compare to newer ones in terms of power consumption.

 

[tkip]

About this whole transit issue in Toronto. A friend of mine, who's super pro transit and loves this city to death has changed her attitudes lately.

She became so fed up with commute times on the TTC, delays and dealing with people she went out a couple of years ago and bought an ebike. She never looked back. In the winter she'd put the bike into storage and go back to the TTC. Last year she she finally announced that she's done with the TTC for good and is shopping for her first car.

She just can't handle the the declining quality of our transit system and that it takes forever to travel across this city using it.

 

[Thanos]

Last tool sure - but still a tool. To say it's not an option at all is silly.

No one said it's not an option. The issue is considering our limited funding and that Ontarians seem to be going backwards and not want to pay for any social service, road infrastructure has to take a back seat until public transit, which has seen little to no funding and all of a sudden we're now scrambling to catch up, is improved.

Fuel taxes generate some $13 billion a year across Canada. Ontario's population being about 37% of the country, that puts the take at about $4.8 billion. The GTA is about half the province, so let's call it $2.4 billion in tax revenues generated right in the GTA. Don't tell me that drivers don't contribute their fair share to cover the costs of driving - and that's just fuel taxes. Add in licensing fees, taxes on their vehicles, taxes on their insurance and that number goes way up.

Is $2.4 billion a year spent on roads and highway infrastructure? What sort of transit infrastructure do you suppose $1.2 billion a year (half) could build? This is what fuel taxes should be paying for. Better roads AND better transit.

Harper is that you? Why haven't you provided the rest of us with itemized billing for our taxes. Do you like inventing numbers? And what the hell does licence fees and insurance have anything to do with this? Since when was that a source of income to fund road infrastructure or transit?

The true cost of a transit ride is about double what the user pays. I understand just fine and happen to AGREE that transit needs to be subsidized - but don't sit there and pretend it's not, while driving is.

I'm waiting for the numbers. Oh wait i forgot, you're completely entitled to invent numbers while other like Freshcutgrass are not. Because you're God right?

Is there an echo in here?

Coocoo Coocoo. What you want me to play you music now.

I'm assuming nothing, but you're doing a fine job of assuming I'm some anti-transit wacko and speaking down to me as such.

That was never my intention and i apologize.

I agree about the private transit companies. People can complain all they want about the 407 being sold off when it could have been a permanent revenue generator - but without PPP money it never would have been built in the first place. You want better transit infrastructure in Toronto, open it up to private investment.

We finally agree on something. However, this goes for roads as well. In other words, road tolls.

Possible, but it's fairy tale thinking considering the complete and utter lack of transit infrastructure in place. LRTs are great for localized transport, but if you really want people to choose to get out of their cars, you don't make their 30 minute drive into a 90 minute transit trip in overcrowded buses and streetcars. Express trains and subways are the higher level transit needed, not more streetcars moving 20 km/h.

LRTs are very effective if used properly. Are you confusing LRT with street cars? Because a streetcar is not LRT.

Absolutely drivers do pay more. They pay the same as everyone else for police and emergency services, but the fuel taxes ($13 billion a year) would more than pay for the cost of building and maintaining those roads, not to mentioning licensing fees, taxes on vehicle related spending, etc... you can't deny $13 billion in revenue generated.

And where is this 13 billion coming from. Do i wave a magic hand? Do we nationalize all the profitable companies to steal money from shareholders? Last i checked, Canada does not have a national transit policy. And if Canada spends huge amount of cash on any infrastructure project, whether road or mass transit, it will most probably go on high speed rail. Which doesn't solve the municipality issues.

$13 billion in fuel taxes - plus who knows how much more in other revenues - is not irrelevant at all. Of course the car is not infrastructure, neither is my bike or your banana - the point is that the revenues generated by the activity itself are substantial enough that the cost of private transportation comes a lot closer to paying for itself than transit does - and that's OK - just don't sit there and claim the opposite is true.

And who says those funds go to road infrastructure and public transit? In Quebec for example, the car registration is more than double that of Ontario. And about 25% goes to infrastructure.

Do you have any clue how much power this is on a daily, monthly or yearly basis? One streetcar uses as much power in one hour as the average family home does in 28 years. I don't know how many cars on each of the 11 lines at any given time, but let's say 4 as a minimum. It's probably triple during peak hours, but let's go with 44 cars. 44 streetcars operating 18 hours a day works out to over 75,000,000 kW/h - or 75,000 mW/h -or 75 gW/h... for a whopping 1.7 gW/h per day, which is equal to carbon footprint of about 650,000 lbs - PER CAR, PER DAY.

Waiting to see where you get these numbers from. I'm not saying your wrong. Just waiting.

 

[Thanos]

About this whole transit issue in Toronto. A friend of mine, who's super pro transit and loves this city to death has changed her attitudes lately.

She became so fed up with commute times on the TTC, delays and dealing with people she went out a couple of years ago and bought an ebike. She never looked back. In the winter she'd put the bike into storage and go back to the TTC. Last year she she finally announced that she's done with the TTC for good and is shopping for her first car.

She just can't handle the the declining quality of our transit system and that it takes forever to travel across this city using it.

Well that's because the TTC is completely messed up. Maybe it's because it got too big. The TTC is larger and has more passengers than the CTA, and Chicago is similar in size to Toronto.
I've always said the TTC needs to be fully reviewed from A to Z. The last time i used TTC i asked the guy at the ticket counter for 5 tokens. He turns away takes his sweet ass time while talking to another buddy that was in the glass room with him. TTC needs to get more automated. I shouldn't be talking to a person to get tokens. And what's with the people who sit there and their sole purpose is tell the driver when to close the doors. I've never seen this anywhere else. Somebody actually thought of making that a job? Toronto has some silly red tape with cops and the TTC that needs to be eliminated.

 

[Marko]

Would be interested to see how our streetcars compare to newer ones in terms of power consumption.

I tried to find that out - but there is very little mentioned aside from some comments about how they can take more passengers and use up to 10% less energy. It's not clear if that's 10% less energy per rider, or per car, though.

The new Bombardier models are bigger and longer and what info I found on high efficiency models in Europe shows they actually use more power per car, but carry more riders each and therefore less energy per rider.

There are 245 streetcars in the TTC stable right now and they use either 4*65kW (articulated) or 2*135kW (non-articulated single cars), which is a lot of juice no matter how many riders are on it.

The fact is that you have to figure out the average number of riders per car, from the time they start running to when they stop - and not base it on full streetcars. You then have to calculate how the energy itself is calculated (coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, etc...), and do the math between the two to fogure out the energy per passenger km. There have been studies done - and questioned of course - that showed the average emissions per rider are actually comparable with a car - also depending on the type of vehicle and emissions vs number of average riders.

A more credible study I read showed that Trams (newer gen streetcars) were 3-4 times more efficient than a single car with a single occupant, which makes more sense. If you could increase the average number of people in each car, you'd reduce the number of cars or if they're smaller cars or hybrids, the reductions go even further. It's an extremely complicated thing to try to quantify with so many variables, with each city being different.

That's sort of beside the point though - the streetcars are zero emission only at the point of the car. Even if they pollute only 30% as much per passenger km, it's still 30% and certainly not zero, which is a ridiculous assertion. It's many millions of tonnes of carbon ber streetcar, per year.

Harper is that you? Why haven't you provided the rest of us with itemized billing for our taxes. Do you like inventing numbers? And what the hell does licence fees and insurance have anything to do with this? Since when was that a source of income to fund road infrastructure or transit?
...
I'm waiting for the numbers. Oh wait i forgot, you're completely entitled to invent numbers while other like Freshcutgrass are not. Because you're God right?

'm using numbers that actually count something. freshcutgrass was pulling percentages out of his ass to quantify things that you can't actually measure, like who could or should take transit. If you (or he) can't see the difference then I can't help you. I even said in my previous post that I "think" it's closer to an even split but there would be no way to support that claim - so I certainly wouldn't throw out something like 99% as if it's absolute fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada
Feds take $5 billion in fuel taxes, plus $1.6 billion is GST on fuel.The provinces take in about $8 billion, so it's actually $14.6 bil and not the $13 bil I listed.

Coocoo Coocoo. What you want me to play you music now.

You don't see how using the very things I said as an opposing argument is a little weird?

LRTs are very effective if used properly. Are you confusing LRT with street cars? Because a streetcar is not LRT.
...
And who says those funds go to road infrastructure and public transit? In Quebec for example, the car registration is more than double that of Ontario. And about 25% goes to infrastructure.

Streetcars were being discussed and while some areas of Toronto will be supported with LRTs - which can be good, I agree - other areas will remain streetcar only or function as a streetcar. My opinion is that streetcars and/or LRT should only be used where dedicated lanes can be separated from traffic to ensure they are actually, you know - rapid, and don't otherwise interfere with other traffic on the street. The rails can be a danger for cars and cyclists, any mechanical or weather issue blocks the entire road and the frequent stops with users stepping out into the street are both flow stoppers and dangerous.

They should also only be used where ridership warrants and not in places where they might average 15,000 riders per day. Eglinton LRT is very good, Finch LRT not so much - better served by bus.

There does need to be more LRT, probably another 10-12 lines in the GTA, but high efficiency buses can actually do really well if you give them a dedicated ROW without the billions in rail and electrical infrastructure. We'll see how this works in Mississauga when it's done along Eastgate. I would support BRT on routes like Finch. With dedicated lanes, you can dress up buses to look/feel a lot more like trains - they're doing it in lots of places already.

 

[ducati0000]

You want a quick fix try training the workers better...so many times you met grumpy rude TTC workers,yes the public sometimes can be a pain also but when you sign up for this job you should be ready to deal with the general population.I seen buses daisy chain during rush hour.People waiting twice as long as normal and when the bus arrive there is 2-3 following each other and normally the last one is almost empty...cant the last bus sit for 5 minutes at a stop so that buses are spread apart?...seen buses idling in front of a Timmies so many times with a passengers getting pissed watching the driver come back with a double double.They should ban that practice and make drivers take breaks at the station.

 

[MetroMan]

This is Rob Ford pulling out of the CTV parking lot after an interview. The CTV building is located at 299 Queen St. West, a mere 2 blocks away from City Hall at 100 Queen St. West. Nothing better exemplifies his policies towards a walkable, cycle-able city as this photo.

 

[Marko]

This is Rob Ford pulling out of the CTV parking lot after an interview. The CTV building is located at 299 Queen St. West, a mere 2 blocks away from City Hall at 100 Queen St. West. Nothing better exemplifies his policies towards a walkable, cycle-able city as this photo.

Unless you know for a fact he was driving right back to City Hall (actually 3 blocks, maybe 4 depending how you count - close enough to walk but doesn't sound quite as bad as 2, does it?), the only thing that photo shows is that he does drive in from his home in Etobicoke and he got into it when he left City.

Oh, and he drives a Ford minivan, being a familiy guy and all - and he's sweaty when it's 49 degrees with humidex - definitely a no-no for a mayor, right?