Road design, transportation and walkability

[Acitta]

I am 67 and never owned a car and got along fine with my bicycles, public transit and occasional taxi. When you don't own a car then you make a point of living where transit is convenient. If you need to move something, you hire a guy with a truck. I think that a lot of people who drive could get along without a car most of the time. One option for people who need to drive but not all of the time is car-sharing or rental.

[dtkvictim]

Dan, nowhere in this world has great transit. It just doesn't happen. It can be a good choice for some, but for most, it just isn't. Many people value their time.

Perhaps we have a different idea of what "great" is, but that's a very strong and I think untrue statement to make. I think a number of Europe's transit systems meet the bar for great. I think Tokyo's (and major Japanese cities in general) transit far, far exceeds great. I haven't been to other east Asian countries but I've heard other's are comparable. It's possible.

I understand what you mean about valuing time, but actual "great" transit can save you time. In very congested cities, proper transit will make your trip genuinely shorter. But beyond that, riding transit (so long as it's frequent and similar in speed to driving) frees up the time you would have spent driving for things like reading or even getting in a bit of work.

I take care of my 80 year old mom. She needed to go in today for a shot. I was finished work at 4 -- I was able to get her, take her to the doctors office which was on the other side of the city (they used to be closer, but they moved), afterward, she also needed to run an errand, then she got some food. I was able to do all this in about 70 minutes. Now, had I had to use transit, I would have had to leave work 3 hours early, this would get me home within 90 minutes, and 2 hours to get to her doctors office. We'll have to skip the errand and getting food, and another 2 hours to get back home. That's 5.5 hours dedicated to getting her to the doctors office and back home. Whether or not she could have even did all the walking (about 2 km to the closest bus stop, due to water main work, otherwise, 750 meters, but this is summer construction and another 750 meters from the bus stop to her doctors office) is another factor.

No matter how much money we put into transit, it will never replace private transportation as a practical alternative.

Perhaps Dan is arguing differently here (and if he is I disagree with him), but I think the point isn't to stop driving entirely. But to stop depending on cars for 100% of types of trips. Some kinds of trips of best made by car. Actually, most trips are right now in Canada, but this is an issue of investment, not an inherent feature of cars. Not building a new highway to Guelph does not stop you from driving to Guelph. Having no transit options to Guelph prevents you from taking transit to Guelph.

I can't understand complaining about investing in transit because it sucks, when it sucks because it's not invested in.

I don't disagree that we should be building along the corridors, and we're doing that. But to suggest we toll cars and give out free transit is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I get it. You hate cars but you love transit. It works well for you. That's great. Good for you. I am happy for you. But for the other 85% of us, it just doesn't work. Not all of us have the time to wait around for transit to get us from point A to point B.

There are many costs (direct and indirect) that come from building our society around cars. The entire population is paying those costs, but I don't think it's so obvious to everyone what those costs are. Tolling car use more directly would make people a lot more aware of this... For the record, I hate cars and Canadian transit just as much (for different reasons), but the levels of investment Canada has put into either of these are drastically different.

[danbrotherston]

I don't understand why you think this.  The world is what we choose to make it...if we wanted transit to be a great option for the majority, we could make it so. Instead we're building highways, which ensures that transit isn't a great option.

We've been through this before, all of the problems with transit you list are choices.  If we cars a toll per passenger, and transit was free and communities were designed transit first, and cars last (basically the opposite situation we have today) you've be arguing building a highway is stupid because it doesn't work for most people.

But that is exactly what I am saying, instead of building an unusustainble car first sprawling suburb, build a transit first complete community.  As for what other countries, the one I'm most familiar with is the Netherlands, basically all of their new cities (and they do have new cities, some are just new, some are built on land that didn't exist before 60 years ago), are centred on a central train station with frequent trains to nearby major cities, and have ubiquitous bike infrastructure. In most cases driving is more expensive and slower than biking + transit, and their mobility is better than ours.  And for those who do like to drive...the Netherlands is reliably rated as better to drive in than our country.  We should be building that here, it's better in every way.

Dan, nowhere in this world has great transit. It just doesn't happen. It can be a good choice for some, but for most, it just isn't. Many people value their time. And I'll give you an example:

I take care of my 80 year old mom. She needed to go in today for a shot. I was finished work at 4 -- I was able to get her, take her to the doctors office which was on the other side of the city (they used to be closer, but they moved), afterward, she also needed to run an errand, then she got some food. I was able to do all this in about 70 minutes. Now, had I had to use transit, I would have had to leave work 3 hours early, this would get me home within 90 minutes, and 2 hours to get to her doctors office. We'll have to skip the errand and getting food, and another 2 hours to get back home. That's 5.5 hours dedicated to getting her to the doctors office and back home. Whether or not she could have even did all the walking (about 2 km to the closest bus stop, due to water main work, otherwise, 750 meters, but this is summer construction and another 750 meters from the bus stop to her doctors office) is another factor.

No matter how much money we put into transit, it will never replace private transportation as a practical alternative.

I don't disagree that we should be building along the corridors, and we're doing that. But to suggest we toll cars and give out free transit is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I get it. You hate cars but you love transit. It works well for you. That's great. Good for you. I am happy for you. But for the other 85% of us, it just doesn't work. Not all of us have the time to wait around for transit to get us from point A to point B.

As for The Netherlands, that's good they can do what they do. But they're a different country. They can have robust transit from city to city because it's a small country, only 42,000 km2 - compare this to Southern Ontario, 140,000 km2. Weather wise it's favourable for them to bike year round. While not warm in the winter, it does stay above freezing, unlike here, where are morning lows mid December to mid March is typically between -8 and - 20.

And as I pointed out before, when stuff like strikes and what's going on with covid-19, that makes mass transit a poor choice for many. I won't risk the health of elderly or immune compromised friends and family.

I'll also mention that once things return to 'normal' and my work hours are no longer 8-4, M-F, transit is also 100% useless to me, and many that I know. KWC and G are so tiny, they'll never spend the funds to run transit 24/7 to make us usable for everyone. This highway 7 announcement is great. You may not like it, but those that use it are happy.

I honestly don't know why we cannot get past this sticking point.  Why do you believe that the lack of transit HERE means that nowhere has good transit, and for that matter, that good transit cannot exist?

You even go on to say "well we're not the Netherlands"...almost contradicting your earlier statement. Perhaps you know, and also know that I know, that the Netherlands does indeed have transit that is that good, even if we don't have it here.

And guess what else isn't the Netherlands?  The Netherlands circa 1975.  They were on the same path as us, building car dependent suburbs. They changed course, they built transit and cycling instead, and now cycling combined with transit is faster for most trips in cities. We could do the same thing, it is a choice. There is nothing inherent about the Netherlands that we cannot do here. Their climate is not as nice as you believe, their country is not as flat as you believe, the only meaningful difference is the decisions their leadership has made. As for transit vs. cars...there are thousands of cities on Earth where transit is used more than cars...there are numerous reasons for this, not all of them because transit (plus biking or walking) is better than driving as it is in the Netherlands, but in most cases it is because transit is good.

I'm not suggesting we will get there tomorrow, but we will never get there if we keep making the decisions we have made, instead of the ones they have made.

And just in case you think, well, they're a special case, they are not, other places have followed their lead and successfully build effective transit and cycling infrastructure. Nobody is as far along as they are, but plenty are moving in that direction, even in North America.

[ijmorlan]

I was just making a random Internet comment, but that’s a good question

I think I was thinking like a taxi, but without the labour expense. So on-demand. That’s not to say that autonomous vehicles couldn’t do scheduled services, but part of the point of transit vehicles and especially larger ones like articulated or double-decker buses and LRT vehicles or trains is to have one driver drive many people. If we’re talking about a small vehicle, it probably makes more sense for it to go where it is requested.

Given unlimited road capacity and parking availability, I agree. But as those are constrained, the problem with the taxi model is that AV taxis potentially consume just as much parking space and road capacity as private cars. And the energy they consume is not free, either, even if they are built as energy-efficient.

I think you forgot what I said in the message the message I was replying to was replying to: “Autonomous vehicles would hypothetically be great for low-volume public transit”, then I gave a specific example and finished by observing that “They have no place substituting for any rail service or even a busy bus line.”. I am well aware that autonomous vehicles, even if they can be made to work as well as one imagines when one thinks of autonomous vehicles, cannot handle the high traffic associated with dense urban areas.

[tomh009]

Given unlimited road capacity and parking availability, I agree. But as those are constrained, the problem with the taxi model is that AV taxis potentially consume just as much parking space and road capacity as private cars. And the energy they consume is not free, either, even if they are built as energy-efficient.

I think you forgot what I said in the message the message I was replying to was replying to: “Autonomous vehicles would hypothetically be great for low-volume public transit”, then I gave a specific example and finished by observing that “They have no place substituting for any rail service or even a busy bus line.”. I am well aware that autonomous vehicles, even if they can be made to work as well as one imagines when one thinks of autonomous vehicles, cannot handle the high traffic associated with dense urban areas.

Fair enough. But some of those issues would still appear on busy intercity links such as the 401 -- or Hwy 7.

What might work is an automated mid-sized vehicle (similar to a large van) that can pick up maybe 10-15 passengers at specified locations, and take them to their destinations, but shared with other passengers. Similar to how something like WheelTrans works today.

[jeffster]

Dan, nowhere in this world has great transit. It just doesn't happen. It can be a good choice for some, but for most, it just isn't. Many people value their time. And I'll give you an example:

I take care of my 80 year old mom. She needed to go in today for a shot. I was finished work at 4 -- I was able to get her, take her to the doctors office which was on the other side of the city (they used to be closer, but they moved), afterward, she also needed to run an errand, then she got some food. I was able to do all this in about 70 minutes. Now, had I had to use transit, I would have had to leave work 3 hours early, this would get me home within 90 minutes, and 2 hours to get to her doctors office. We'll have to skip the errand and getting food, and another 2 hours to get back home. That's 5.5 hours dedicated to getting her to the doctors office and back home. Whether or not she could have even did all the walking (about 2 km to the closest bus stop, due to water main work, otherwise, 750 meters, but this is summer construction and another 750 meters from the bus stop to her doctors office) is another factor.

No matter how much money we put into transit, it will never replace private transportation as a practical alternative.

I don't disagree that we should be building along the corridors, and we're doing that. But to suggest we toll cars and give out free transit is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I get it. You hate cars but you love transit. It works well for you. That's great. Good for you. I am happy for you. But for the other 85% of us, it just doesn't work. Not all of us have the time to wait around for transit to get us from point A to point B.

As for The Netherlands, that's good they can do what they do. But they're a different country. They can have robust transit from city to city because it's a small country, only 42,000 km2 - compare this to Southern Ontario, 140,000 km2. Weather wise it's favourable for them to bike year round. While not warm in the winter, it does stay above freezing, unlike here, where are morning lows mid December to mid March is typically between -8 and - 20.

And as I pointed out before, when stuff like strikes and what's going on with covid-19, that makes mass transit a poor choice for many. I won't risk the health of elderly or immune compromised friends and family.

I'll also mention that once things return to 'normal' and my work hours are no longer 8-4, M-F, transit is also 100% useless to me, and many that I know. KWC and G are so tiny, they'll never spend the funds to run transit 24/7 to make us usable for everyone. This highway 7 announcement is great. You may not like it, but those that use it are happy.

I honestly don't know why we cannot get past this sticking point.  Why do you believe that the lack of transit HERE means that nowhere has good transit, and for that matter, that good transit cannot exist?

You even go on to say "well we're not the Netherlands"...almost contradicting your earlier statement. Perhaps you know, and also know that I know, that the Netherlands does indeed have transit that is that good, even if we don't have it here.

And guess what else isn't the Netherlands?  The Netherlands circa 1975.  They were on the same path as us, building car dependent suburbs. They changed course, they built transit and cycling instead, and now cycling combined with transit is faster for most trips in cities. We could do the same thing, it is a choice. There is nothing inherent about the Netherlands that we cannot do here. Their climate is not as nice as you believe, their country is not as flat as you believe, the only meaningful difference is the decisions their leadership has made. As for transit vs. cars...there are thousands of cities on Earth where transit is used more than cars...there are numerous reasons for this, not all of them because transit (plus biking or walking) is better than driving as it is in the Netherlands, but in most cases it is because transit is good.

I'm not suggesting we will get there tomorrow, but we will never get there if we keep making the decisions we have made, instead of the ones they have made.

And just in case you think, well, they're a special case, they are not, other places have followed their lead and successfully build effective transit and cycling infrastructure. Nobody is as far along as they are, but plenty are moving in that direction, even in North America.

How am I “almost” contradicting myself when I say ‘we’re not the Netherlands’? You used it as an example for what Canada could do, despite HUGE differences between the two countries. We can blissfully ignore those differences.

Yet, despite everything that the Netherlands did, and despite higher tax rates for cars (when you purchase, when you buy gas), they still have more than 1 car per household. They also have way more motorways (highways), than say Southern Ontario (I use southern Ontario as an example — 1) close to the same population, 2) only 3 times larger than the Netherlands, as comparing to Canada would be too difficult). And they have once of the most dense roadways in Europe, and they continue to upgrade roads. Perhaps The Netherlands wasn’t a great example to use.

I have no issue with governments spending money on transit and cycling. I think they should. But they also have to take care of roads as well, and this sometimes means building or widening certain roads because it’s needed.

Something you keep refusing to address though, are these two things: transit cannot be used by the majority of people. Cycling is limited in Canada to about 7 or 8 months. Again, I have no issue with infrastructure spending on these things — but you need to realize that it’s only two components of our transportation system, and acknowledge its limitations, no matter how much we spend.

No acknowledgment of transit disruptions either (either the odd strike or pestilence).

You lose points when you say things like “start tolling cars” and “make transit free” as if somehow punishing people by stealing their time, those that can’t afford to live in some sort of transit corridor, those with elderly families, or those with health issues, is an answer, because it is not. And no country has done that.

Stop hating the car, and stop hating car drivers. We got to where we are, and indeed, and developed nation has, by a combination of great transportation infrastructure, including private vehicles.

[clasher]

Driving in Paris is a nightmare compared to using the transit system there. Nice little overview

[danbrotherston]

I honestly don't know why we cannot get past this sticking point.  Why do you believe that the lack of transit HERE means that nowhere has good transit, and for that matter, that good transit cannot exist?

You even go on to say "well we're not the Netherlands"...almost contradicting your earlier statement. Perhaps you know, and also know that I know, that the Netherlands does indeed have transit that is that good, even if we don't have it here.

And guess what else isn't the Netherlands?  The Netherlands circa 1975.  They were on the same path as us, building car dependent suburbs. They changed course, they built transit and cycling instead, and now cycling combined with transit is faster for most trips in cities. We could do the same thing, it is a choice. There is nothing inherent about the Netherlands that we cannot do here. Their climate is not as nice as you believe, their country is not as flat as you believe, the only meaningful difference is the decisions their leadership has made. As for transit vs. cars...there are thousands of cities on Earth where transit is used more than cars...there are numerous reasons for this, not all of them because transit (plus biking or walking) is better than driving as it is in the Netherlands, but in most cases it is because transit is good.

I'm not suggesting we will get there tomorrow, but we will never get there if we keep making the decisions we have made, instead of the ones they have made.

And just in case you think, well, they're a special case, they are not, other places have followed their lead and successfully build effective transit and cycling infrastructure. Nobody is as far along as they are, but plenty are moving in that direction, even in North America.

How am I “almost” contradicting myself when I say ‘we’re not the Netherlands’? You used it as an example for what Canada could do, despite HUGE differences between the two countries. We can blissfully ignore those differences.

Yet, despite everything that the Netherlands did, and despite higher tax rates for cars (when you purchase, when you buy gas), they still have more than 1 car per household. They also have way more motorways (highways), than say Southern Ontario (I use southern Ontario as an example — 1) close to the same population, 2) only 3 times larger than the Netherlands, as comparing to Canada would be too difficult). And they have once of the most dense roadways in Europe, and they continue to upgrade roads.  Perhaps The Netherlands wasn’t a great example to use.

I have no issue with governments spending money on transit and cycling. I think they should. But they also have to take care of roads as well, and this sometimes means building or widening certain roads because it’s needed.

Something you keep refusing to address though, are these two things: transit cannot be used by the majority of people. Cycling is limited in Canada to about 7 or 8 months. Again, I have no issue with infrastructure spending on these things — but you need to realize that it’s only two components of our transportation system, and acknowledge its limitations, no matter how much we spend.

No acknowledgment of transit disruptions either (either the odd strike or pestilence).

You lose points when you say things like “start tolling cars” and “make transit free” as if somehow punishing people by stealing their time, those that can’t afford to live in some sort of transit corridor, those with elderly families, or those with health issues, is an answer, because it is not. And no country has done that.

Stop hating the car, and stop hating car drivers. We got to where we are, and indeed, and developed nation has, by a combination of great transportation infrastructure, including private vehicles.

I have addressed this in every single comment I've written. You keep claiming thaat transit cannot be used by everyone. This is only true in some places. This is a choice that we have made. Other places have made different choices. If we made different choices, transit would be preferred over driving. There is aboslutely nothing inherent about our city which makes the car the better (if selfish) choice for most people, it is an intentional explicit policy that our government has implemented.

I talk about the Netherlands because I am most familiar with it, but I also mentioned there are examples all over. These are places which have made different choices, and thus have different outcomes...where transit/cycling/walking is preferred over driving in cities.

The "tolling" is not punishing people, nor am I "stealing" anything, unless you want to argue that people who drive cars are "stealing" from society, they are stealing safety, they are stealing clean air, they are stealing space. These are costs that we all pay for drivers to drive, tolling would merely put those costs on drivers. Since when is paying for something that you use "punishment"?

I have no hate of drivers, I do hate car oriented policies, and I hate the continued proliferation of bad transportation policy. That's different from hating drivers.

Then you reiterate the same arguments...it's exhausting and pointless.

So you can repeat yourself one more time without listening, I'm not going to bother after this.

[Bytor]

Yet, despite everything that the Netherlands did, and despite higher tax rates for cars (when you purchase, when you buy gas), they still have more than 1 car per household.

They also use them les soften, too, at an average of 13,000km yearly compared 20k in Canada. That's because many of those car owners are taking public transit or cycling or walking for a lot of things.

I have no issue with governments spending money on transit and cycling. I think they should. But they also have to take care of roads as well, and this sometimes means building or widening certain roads because it’s needed.

Here's something ask - why do transit and cycling infrastructure projects need business cases but roads do not? Even though it is well known and document that added transit service creates big jumps in transit usage, it still has to be justified but road widenings never are?

Something you keep refusing to address though, are these two things: transit cannot be used by the majority of people.

That is just false. Transit can be used by anybody who has a bus stop within a 5 minute walk of the start and end points. Locally, that covers 85% of all residences in Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge.

Cycling is limited in Canada to about 7 or 8 months.

False. I see people cycling all winter long. Especially the last 10 years because of the constant warm spells thanks to global warming.

No acknowledgment of transit disruptions either (either the odd strike or pestilence).

They happen less often than accidents on the 401. BTW, can I use covid-19 to say that recent 401 widening from Kitchener to Cambridge was obviously not needed?

You lose points when you say things like “start tolling cars” and “make transit free” as if somehow punishing people by stealing their time, those that can’t afford to live in some sort of transit corridor, those with elderly families, or those with health issues, is an answer, because it is not. And no country has done that.

That's not a reason to no start tolling, it's a reason add better transit service along such corridors, like our iXpress network has been doing. None of those other things you mention are barriers to transit, either. There's no reason why elderly people can't use out modern, low-floor busses. I see them doing so all the time on GRT.

BTW, your anecdote about helping an elderly relative to a medical appointment via transit? I've had enough visits to New York and used the busses and metro there for a week at a time to know that I could accomplish what you describe in under and hour even if I lived in Brooklyn and worked in Manhattan. I'm also fairly certain given my experiences using transit in Atlanta, Chicago, Washington D.C. and Dublin that I could do the same in those places. How often have you use transit systems elsewhere? In those places it very easily replaces private transportation as an option.

Dan is quite right to say that you appear to assume that just because GRT isn't the best that nowhere has good transit.

Stop hating the car, and stop hating car drivers. We got to where we are, and indeed, and developed nation has, by a combination of great transportation infrastructure, including private vehicles.

Then please tell the car drivers to stop hating transit. There's far more of them, and as a greater percentage of all car drivers, too, that want no increases in public transit service or even to get rid of it entirely, than whatever anti-car type you seem to think Dan is.

[Coke6pk]

Stop hating the car, and stop hating car drivers. We got to where we are, and indeed, and developed nation has, by a combination of great transportation infrastructure, including private vehicles.

Then please tell the car drivers to stop hating transit. There's far more of them, and as a greater percentage of all car drivers, too, that want no increases in public transit service or even to get rid of it entirely, than whatever anti-car type you seem to think Dan is.

I'm a car driver, but use transit when there is a convenience for me. [ie. GO train to a sporting event, travelling in a foreign country with good transit infrastructure]

I realize that all those people on transit free up the roadway for me. There is a TV ad (Pretty sure it was posted here in the iON forum, but I'm too lazy to search) that made this point very clear.

I think the automobile and transit can work cohesively.... but as human nature requires, we will always look to others to point out what they have that we don't.

Coke

[SammyOES]

[Spokes]

Great gif!

Good debate folks, but it needs to move.

[tomh009]

Thanks!

[SammyOES]

Thanks. I started thinking my post might be taken with the wrong tone. I do think the debate is worthwhile - I just appreciate it in this thread.

[jeffster]

Yet, despite everything that the Netherlands did, and despite higher tax rates for cars (when you purchase, when you buy gas), they still have more than 1 car per household.

They also use them les soften, too, at an average of 13,000km yearly compared 20k in Canada. That's because many of those car owners are taking public transit or cycling or walking for a lot of things.

I have no issue with governments spending money on transit and cycling. I think they should. But they also have to take care of roads as well, and this sometimes means building or widening certain roads because it’s needed.

Here's something ask - why do transit and cycling infrastructure projects need business cases but roads do not? Even though it is well known and document that added transit service creates big jumps in transit usage, it still has to be justified but road widenings never are?

Something you keep refusing to address though, are these two things: transit cannot be used by the majority of people.

That is just false. Transit can be used by anybody who has a bus stop within a 5 minute walk of the start and end points. Locally, that covers 85% of all residences in Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge.

Cycling is limited in Canada to about 7 or 8 months.

False. I see people cycling all winter long. Especially the last 10 years because of the constant warm spells thanks to global warming.

No acknowledgment of transit disruptions either (either the odd strike or pestilence).

They happen less often than accidents on the 401. BTW, can I use covid-19 to say that recent 401 widening from Kitchener to Cambridge was obviously not needed?

You lose points when you say things like “start tolling cars” and “make transit free” as if somehow punishing people by stealing their time, those that can’t afford to live in some sort of transit corridor, those with elderly families, or those with health issues, is an answer, because it is not. And no country has done that.

That's not a reason to no start tolling, it's a reason add better transit service along such corridors, like our iXpress network has been doing. None of those other things you mention are barriers to transit, either. There's no reason why elderly people can't use out modern, low-floor busses. I see them doing so all the time on GRT.

BTW, your anecdote about helping an elderly relative to a medical appointment via transit? I've had enough visits to New York and used the busses and metro there for a week at a time to know that I could accomplish what you describe in under and hour even if I lived in Brooklyn and worked in Manhattan. I'm also fairly certain given my experiences using transit in Atlanta, Chicago, Washington D.C. and Dublin that I could do the same in those places. How often have you use transit systems elsewhere? In those places it very easily replaces private transportation as an option.

Dan is quite right to say that you appear to assume that just because GRT isn't the best that nowhere has good transit.

Stop hating the car, and stop hating car drivers. We got to where we are, and indeed, and developed nation has, by a combination of great transportation infrastructure, including private vehicles.

Then please tell the car drivers to stop hating transit. There's far more of them, and as a greater percentage of all car drivers, too, that want no increases in public transit service or even to get rid of it entirely, than whatever anti-car type you seem to think Dan is.

You brought up that in The Netherlands that people drive an average of 13,000 km - per year. Canada is 20,000 km. Go take a look at a map, and tell me how that 13,000 figure is great for a country that is super tiny compared to Canada - and a fraction of the size of southern Ontario. The small country size is a benefit to them. Yet, even then, they still do a lot of driving. Actually, considering the advantages the Holland has over Canada, I am surprised they do as much driving as they do. Shocked actually. I thought for sure the numbers would be closer to 5,000K per year. Damn, that’s more driving that what I do, and I have friends and family all over Ontario.

But obviously if they still need to drive as much as they do, their system isn’t great for as many of the people as some think.

As for how they decide to make decisions regarding transportation — in my area, the money has been spent widening the road (in one case) to add bike lanes, and in the other case, removing driving lanes to add bike lanes. No complaints from me. For transit, they did a business study when they started to build the Ion, and a decision was made to remove bus services in my area, and the closest spot was reduced from 7 days to 6, and removed early services and late services.

You mention that 85% of people are within 5 minutes walk of a bus stop. What percent of those 85% are able-bodied enough to do so? Not just anybody can do a 5 minute walk. Factor in summer construction, factor in reduced ‘summer’ services, that 5 minute walks is now 10 minutes or 20 minutes. If you live on a mainline, and have quick access to the Ion, sure, those people can easily use it.

Problem here is: No one is bringing up examples where transit is used by everyone. You bring up that you see people cycling year round, fine. How many people can do it? What numbers do we have to support that winter cycling is a good option for everyone? Global warming or not, we still have cold winters. We still have snow. We still have cold. For this past winter, we had 9 days out of 91 where the temperatures stayed a freezing or higher. You and Dan might be a-okay with a 30 minute bike ride to work in the winter. I am not. And I don’t know of any that actually does this.

As for the ‘anecdote’, how the hell do you compare KWC to New York City? 5 minutes to get to Manhattan to Brooklyn using transit. Done it. Getting from one side of Brooklyn to the other side of Manhattan? Different story. But since you said you could leave work, pick up an elderly, take them to a doctors appointment, then back home in under an hour, I have to call BS on that unless each is 1 or 2 subway stop from each other, and work, elderly, doctors office on same line. If that’s the case, it’s a unique situation and certainly wouldn’t apply to most people.

And whenever I go to Toronto, I usually use their transit, if I am going DT Toronto. Park at the 407ETR and take the 45 minute ride to Union station and a 25 minute walk to wherever, unless going to BMO Field, then take the 25 minute LRT ride. It is quicker by car most times, but I rather not deal with the frustration for the occasional time I got to DT Toronto.

BTW: I haven’t seen any car drivers moan and complain about bike lanes and transit. I don’t doubt they exist. But I would argue there are more car haters than transit/bike haters.

My reason for not using transit is because, 1) when I was on normal shift work, we had no bus services for all time (starting work at 6 am or earlier of OT, or finishing work at 12 or later if OT, not to mention weekend work) so transit is useless for 9 days out fo 20. 2) Even when transit is available, my 8 minute commute increases to over an hour to get to work on time, and an extra 45 minutes back home. No thanks. I have a disabled daughter and elderly mother to take care of, I don’t have the almost extra 10 hours a week to spare commuting just to work, nor the finances to take time off of work to do appointments.

Cycling is just not an option for me, especially during cool weather (under 5ºC ) due to my asthma. Winter isn’t an option, but I am happy for anyone that can do it.

You guys keep bring up tolling — how is this helpful? The corridors are expensive to live on. Sorry — they just are. Transit is next to nothing — make it free, but you don’t need to toll cars to do so. It’s a poor business decisions that would hurt the city, not help.