ION Stage I: what would you do differently?

[danbrotherston]

I really must ask what you folks think grade separation would achieve? Who benefits. What does this investment gain us.

The Courtland and Wilson examples are the most stark. The ONLY benefit drivers, and have zero benefit for LRT riders.

I'm used to money being spent on drivers, what especially bugs me, is that this money would be labeled "transit"...but it isn't being spent on transit.

The single grade separated station (not even the right of way, just the station) that I support, I do so because I believe it would improve the rider experience significantly to be worth the cost both financially and also to the experience of the users of that particular station.

I know I've heard the claims that going underground in DTK would improve the speed, but it doesn't. Going down KING improves the speed, that doesn't require going underground. I've also heard, not waiting for lights, but again, waiting at lights is a choice we've made, not a requirement of at grade operation (pretty clearly since the trains don't wait at all intersections).

Lights should be programmed to give lrt priority. That's fixable without grade separation but grade separation does a few other things. 

First off, in the downtown it improves the pedestrian experience, particularly when it comes to the way the stations are currently organized. 

Secondly grade separation would reduce accidents, which there have been quite a few of since the lrt got up and running and can be quite costly. 

And thirdly, yes it does in fact benefit cars at the aforementioned intersections. Having an eco friendly city does not mean making driving unfeasible to the point that people only choose transit, it means incentivizing transit to make it the better mode of transportation. 

Livability and maneuverability are huge measures of an attractive city, and in rush hour around the fairview park area it can be absolutely horrific. 

I'd rather money be spent to ensure that Fairway rd can continue to keep up with the existing demand, than i would see millions get spent on widening the 401 for future demand

You have to explain this? Are you referring to the split stations? That would be improved by the LRT going down King, which again, does not require grade separation. I actually think running the LRT down King would improve the pedestrian experience, a transit mall is vastly more pleasant than the car dominated road we have most of the time today.  It *would* disrupt the King festivals...we might have to take over another parallel street for festivals....

Grade separation would reduce collisions, there have been a few in the sections you are proposing, but others still occur in other sections. But their cost is tiny compared with the cost of running underground and at the rate they are happening now, will not ever pay even a small fraction of the cost of tunnelling. Adding in the cost of delays for users...you might get a little closer.

I disagree, driving must be disincentivised...especially given the current level of subsidy, and especially given that a driving friendly city is NECESSARILY oppressive to transit and walking. But that's a philosophical question. But even if you are not against cars, which I am not in practice, the relevant point here is that these costs here would be blamed on transit, we must correctly ascribe these costs to drivers, and explain clearly that drivers are the beneficiaries of these investments. This is just one more way in which drivers are subsidized and pretend that they are not.

"The fairway area can be horrific"...you and I have very different definitions of the word "horrific"...there's some limited congestion for a short time...having driven through Toronto, and even London...in my experience, it's pretty minimal.

It is oppressively busy, noisy, and polluted...as all car dependent places are...further subsidizing and easing car travel will only make that aspect worse, not better.