Michael Warren argues that what the GTHA needs is a region wide transit system. thestar.com/opinion/contri…
2. He ignores the fact that the major problem today is the lack of financial support for "integration" from Queen's Park. Fare boundaries exist because of low municipal transit subsidies. Regions with poor service have no incentive to improve.
3. The "barrier" for fares is all about funding and service levels, not something a regional agency can fix without (a) better funding and (b) a philosophical/political framework that says "transit must be better".
4. The existing "regional" agency, @Metrolinx , jealously guards its own revenue stream and only recently looked at lower fares on GO for shorter trips at political urging by the late Liberal govt. That policy is now in limbo.
5. The regional plan for "rapid transit" contains a lot of bus rapid transit corridors that are little more than a reserved lane and infrequent service. Projected transit market share for regional travel will fall.
6. Warren claims Toronto ranks behind other cities for quality of transit. The study cited notes that TO has a good system but lacks adequate funding. Other cities claimed to be better, e.g. Boston, have huge problems aligning plans with available dollars.
7. Ridership in Toronto has stalled because (a) there has been little addition to service esp during peak periods and (b) much population growth and travel does not lie in areas/corridors well-served by transit.
8. There is a very good chance that the GTHA has passed the point of no return on making transit a real choice for travel, especially outside the core area. A few subway lines won't fix this.
9. Warren actually says that we should look south of the border to systems that are more car-competitive. What planet is he living on? The real examples are not in N America, and they are not just car competitive, they are car hostile.
10. The horrendous congestion we now suffer from esp for 905-to-905 trips is almost certainly here to stay. We built the region around cars, now we're stuck with the travel demand that creates.
11. Creating a single transit agency to rule them all is a recipe for further decline of transit where it does work, not for some brave new world where transit would be the unquestioned champion. Especially with skinflints like DoFo in power.
12. "Governance" is not the solution. What is needed is real commitment to make transit better in as many places as possible and with excellent financial support. In our something-for-nothing political climate, this will not happen.
13. On the subject of "reducing congestion", I have yet to see anyone with a plan that would really achieve that. Even Metrolinx' "Big Move" only reduces the rate of auto travel growth, does not reduce it in absolute terms.
14. Moreover, there is much latent demand (hence the congestion) and transit improvements would have to be massive to dilute that to the point where congestion isn't a problem much of the time.
15. I challenge any transit/transportation planner to come up with a credible way to deal with this problem. Assuming everyone will work from home is cheating because it won't happen, and autonomous vehicles won't solve the fundamental issue of demand > supply.
16. It is fashionable in many circles to think that the need for transit investment can be avoided. It cannot, and we must make it even if this seems like a losing battle.
17. And finally, for those who think that the transit sun shines out of Metrolinx' butt, I offer one word: Presto.
