Should cars be banned from Queen St.?

There is much talk about creating cities for people and not just for car mobility. There is lots of talk about improving pedestrian safety, promoting cycling, improving public transportation, but not much doing.

The World Car Free Day celebration presents a wonderful opportunity to be innovative and actually do something relevant and bold in Toronto. Why not open Queen Street to pedestrians, cyclists and street cars and close it to motor vehicles during the week of September 20th to the 26th?

Queen Street is already poor for car mobility. It’s narrow, has too many parked cars and the street car makes it even slower. The amount of cars using this street could easily be absorbed by Richmond and Adelaide, from Niagara Street in the west to Parliament Street to the east. It’s just 3.8 kilometres but could be a magnificent pilot project that if successful, could become permanent in 2011.

Queen Street is a good street, but it can be better. It can become a world class street. The transformation of Queen Street, along with car diversion to parallel streets, can be a learning experience for many communities. Similar actions in comparable cities have proven to be extraordinary for local business, and magnificent for people of all ages and levels of ability who enjoy a great public place. In the process, we can imagine what a Toronto for people can look and feel like.

A great complement to this pilot project would be to do a ped/bike friendly treatment on Yonge St., by opening the right lanes in both directions exclusive for bicycle riders from Bloor St. to Lake Ontario, leaving the two centre lanes for cars and buses. This would complete the east-west and a north-south bicycle connection.

Smaller interventions should also be used to connect these two arterials to educational institutions, parks, Union Station, and other points of origin and/or destination.

This would be a celebration of Car Free Week with a great deal of impact, which would get everyone thinking about the role of the pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and cars, in a sustainable city. Special projects could be developed from elementary schools to PhD students, media coverage, public forums, etc. The monetary cost is small, as all you need are some signs, pylons, and politicians who have guts and aren’t afraid to think and act big.

Other cities have taken similar measures.

• In Bogota, Colombia, Car Free Day is celebrated on a Thursday in February by not allowing circulation of cars anywhere in a city of 7 million people (approved by referendum);
• in Brussels, Belgium, they also have a total ban on cars one Sunday per year.
• NYC transformed Broadway around Times Square into an exclusive pedestrian and cycling way.

Copenhagen, Paris and Portland also enjoy car free streets and closer to home, one of the nicest experiences for Vancouverites during the Winter Olympics was to have multiple streets open to people and closed to cars during the games; the experience was so successful for community building as well as for the business owners that Administration is evaluating the possibility of making it permanent.

Change is hard and it does not happen by consensus. We must change if we want to combat global warming, the obesity epidemic, economic crisis and traffic congestion, elements that are creating a perfect storm. We cannot expect different results by doing things the same way.

Why not take up this challenge and together, elected officials, city staff, and community members look for solutions to the problems that might arise with this pilot project and not for problems to the solutions and make it a wonderful celebration of life in Toronto?

Queen St. could really become the Jewel of the City, and in the process, contribute to having a cleaner environment, more vibrant business, nice recreation for all, real alternative transportation modes and more physical activity improving public health.

About Gil Penalosa

Rediscovering commuting by bike, and why it's worth a try

In my last post, I described my frustrations with the TTC. The new condos at Yonge & Eglinton have put a real strain on the subway system, and getting on an overcrowded train to get downtown to my workplace at University & College is unpleasant most of the time.

Years ago when I was starting out in the workforce, I made a very modest salary and didn't have the funds to purchase a Metropass; instead, I rode my bike whenever I could, and used tokens on the days when the weather was uncooperative or biking wasn't a good option (for a job interview, for instance).

As I got older and became a mom, my bike sat in the shed and collected dust. Driving was much more convenient and comfortable, especially when towing a baby and all his paraphernalia. I also used the TTC a lot because it's usually convenient and so much more cost-effective and carbon-friendly than driving. But I never really considered biking to be a a viable option. Until recently.

At the end of April, I was standing on the College subway platform, watching the overcrowded train pull out of the station. This train, and the two previous ones, were so full that no one could board. It was a warm day, and the people inside the train were hot, sweaty, weary and annoyed. Forty minutes later, having managed to get to my son's daycare via smelly subway and stinky bus, I was struck by the pure joy my son was experiencing during his own commute between daycare and home - on his bike.

We all remember riding our bikes as kids: it was an intoxicating taste of freedom, moving under our own power, faster on wheels than we could ever go on foot. It was like flying. My son loves his bike and has a sense of pride in his ability to ride well. I figured it was time I dusted off my bike, and get riding.

I've ridden to work several days since the end of April, and it's wonderful. The cooperative weather has made it easy. I even took a huge risk and did not buy the May Metropass - clearly, I'm committed.

The bike lanes I use to commute from my house at Mt. Pleasant & Davisville to College & University are adequate, but as most cyclists will tell you, there is a lot of room for improvement. Fortunately, 80 per cent of my ride can be accomplished using bike lanes, but the lanes are full of cyclists and it's clear to me that more bike lanes (and fixing the existing crumbling, pot-holed surfaces) are necessary.

With the bike lanes being so heavily used, I can guarantee that adding more lanes would improve the cycling commute as well as benefit those in cars who find the mass of cyclists distracting. More bike lanes = more orderly behaviour from cyclists, more people who will opt to bike to work thus reducing the number of cars on the road, which is good for everyone.

I know that commuting by bike isn't for everyone; but for many of us, it is a viable option that I encourage you to try. Don't feel like you have to go hard core by abandoning your car and TTC token for your bike, but why not try it once?

Perhaps consider biking one day per week, when the dress code at work is relaxed or you have no client meetings? I can promise you that in addition to avoiding the hassle of public transit, you'll feel invigorated by the feel of the wind in your face, the cadence of your legs, and the liberation of powering your own transportation. The trees are in bloom and smell wonderful. And, there's nothing better than coasting swiftly past a long line of congested traffic.

My cycling commute gets me to work 10 minutes sooner than by transit, burns calories, and is free. Give it a try -- you may like it.

About Kimberly Silk

Cutting transit can be hazardous to your health

Toronto has the third most heavily used transit system in North America after Mexico City and New York City. Yet we rank the lowest for commuting times compared to other major cities. This points to the fact that we have a long way to go in transit investment for an urban region of our size.

A delay in spending on public transit is not just a delay, it puts the entire system in jeopardy. We’ve seen this before when the Mike Harris government stopped the Eglinton line and here we are so many years later delaying it again. The budget freeze may appear to be saving us money in the short term, but it will end up costing us more later, when new transit lines will become improbable to afford and simply won’t happen.

But this delay is not only a setback for commuters, it is a setback for our economy, environment and even our public health. Ironically, as the province was announcing the cuts to transit in one breath, they were setting off alarm bells on the rising cost in public health in the other. I would suggest that there is a direct correlation between the two.

Delaying transit is like delaying a health initiative. Since transit begins and ends on foot, where there’s transit, there are people walking. Walking and transit use is the easiest way to begin to chip away at our sedentary lifestyles brought about by our car-dependent cities. In the end transit helps makes cities more socially, economically and environmentally viable and healthier places to live. Investing in transit is an investment in our public health.

About Dan Leeming

It's not just about finding room for bikes

It’s wonderful that our mayoral candidates and the electorate have a position on bike lanes, whether pro or con, considering not that many years ago the topic didn’t really register with voters and politicians alike. Today there’s general support for bicycles - they don’t pollute, they save us money, they’re fun to ride and they help keep us fit.

Some of the candidates like bikes but not on arterial roads, and the latest plan for University Avenue is generating lots of debate. The reality is that many arterial roads are already used as main thoroughfares by commuter cyclists, and generally speaking bike lanes installed along strategic stretches of roadway could improve safety and comfort for cyclists and lead to more people cycling.

As a form of transportation the bicycle is ultra efficient, a model of appropriate technology that eclipses the automobile in its ability to transform energy into forward motion. For a machine that is seemingly so perfect it’s sad that it causes so much angst and consternation. Militarizing the debate is hostile and counter productive and I wonder if the vitriol that some people use to explain their distain for all things bicycle is really as pervasive as they would have us believe.

Others suggest that a licensing fee for bicycles, to pay for their use of the road and new bike lanes, would be in order. Like bike lanes that go against the traffic – this suggestion is "contra-flow" to prevailing thinking. If someone chooses to ride a bicycle, their travel behaviour should be rewarded and in many countries (unfortunately not ours) governments are paying their citizens to ride their bikes to work.

The Canadian Automobile Association, a seemingly unlikely cycling advocate, promotes the virtues of the bicycle in their spring 2010 issue of CAA Magazine. A series of articles under the "Pedal Power – helping the planet two wheels at a time" banner, reports on the benefits of cycle tourism and bike sharing schemes that have been in place for years in cities like Paris, Barcelona and Stockholm and that may be coming to our city around this time next year.

There appears to be lots of common ground on the debate and if we tease apart the rhetoric we’ll discover that it’s about real estate – and the amount of space to be shared by those on bicycle, on foot, wheeling and in motor vehicles. The dilemma then is where bicycles should go in the right of way (ROW) – that area of land municipalities take from developers and planners and engineers carve up to accommodate the numerous and competing interests and needs.

If this space isn’t adequately shared – transit slows, cars speed, cyclists don’t feel comfortable or safe and pedestrians are put at risk. When we get it wrong the consequences can be disastrous and tragic. As a first consideration we must apportion space more equitably for all road users and then employ road designs that don’t place the needs of motorists ahead of other road users.

A forum happening in the city April 23, 2010 and hosted by the Toronto Coalition for Active Transportation or TCAT, will examine these challenges under the lens of something called "complete streets." Just as a relationship requires a sense of completeness between partners to make it work, our road network must be designed so that streets work for all road users not just those using a car.

About Lorenzo Mele

Bike lane plan spinning it wheels

Nice thought to have protected bikeways in Toronto, physically separating cyclists from pedestrians and from cars, making it safe for all.

Unfortunately the plan to do them on University Ave., from Richmond St. to Wellesley St. will not work. It does not connect anything to anything. It will just provide politicians like Rocco Rossi a wonderful excuse to say that “we are not a bicycle city,” as it will not increase the number cyclists significantly.

In fact, the purpose of having protected bikeways is to increase the current number of cyclists. It would allow people that are not currently cycling because of fear of cars an opportunity to try it in a safe way. This is especially attractive for children, older adults, as well as inexperienced adults.

Nevertheless in addition of having physical separation on arterials, when roads have speeds for cars of 40 km/h or higher and/or over 5,000 cars per day, you need to connect places of origin to places of destination. You need a minimum grid. Toronto is approximately 20 by 40 kilometres; it would be ideal to have a protected bikeway every 2-3 kilometres so that you would have 8 going East – West and 16 North South.

An initial trial should have at least one route North - South from Eglinton Ave. to Lakeshore Blvd. (along University or Yonge) and another East – West on streets like Richmond St. and Adelaide St. all across the city. Ideally the trial should have three in each direction -- a mini grid which then could expand.

People who are not currently cycling in Toronto will not begin to do so just because you have 1,300 metres of protected facility that does not connect places. The existing cyclists will be the only users, maybe adding a few that are using other roads and will move over to try this one, but they are not additional riders.

 It will not show any significant increase and it will not serve to make the case for protected bikeways in Toronto. Actually it will have the opposite effect.

The only positive aspect is that it will educate people on what a “protected bikeway can look like”, even if it is on the wrong side of the street. It should always be uni-directional, on the left, from slow to fast: sidewalks for pedestrians, protected bikeways, then slow car lanes, then fast cars.

Why is it that Toronto is so timid, so scared of thinking big and acting big?

We have one innovative pedestrian crosswalk at Yonge and Dundas, the “scramble” that allows a time for pedestrians to walk in all directions, and three years later we have two. In similar cities like Christchurch, New Zealand, they try one, it works, and within six months they have all the crossings along that main street as a scramble.

Toronto announces it is bringing public bikes and then the director of transportation announces on CBC that “the system is not proven” and the decision is postponed. He does not realize the places like Copenhagen have had it for 20 years; Paris has 20,400 public bikes for the last two years and Montreal now has its very successful Bixi program.

Finally we were going to get the first protected bikeway. We know that in addition to the bikeway itself, we need connectivity, a grid. We get 1.3 kilometres! Can you imagine cars or transit if they just had 1,300 metres of streets or rails at a time? Where could they go to?

Thinking small, acting smaller.

Let’s keep this in mind as we choose our candidates for Mayor and Council across Ontario. Toronto is already good; let’s elect the right people to make it truly great. Who has the vision, political will and managerial capacity to get things done? Who is not afraid to think big and hopefully to act big? There are some good municipal staff all over the GTA, and they deserve to have the best politicians providing the necessary leadership and support. The community has the obligation to think carefully who to elect and to participate in the process.

About Gil Penelosa

Customer service a sea change for TTC

It seems almost too easy these days to find fault with the TTC, and this latest embarrassment concerning the state of repair and cleanliness of the stations should prompt us to take a closer look at the root causes.

Iit wasn’t always this way and I remember as a child in the 1960s how exciting it was to travel downtown from Scarborough on the subway. The cars and stations were shiny and clean, and the drivers were polished and professional. It was a different era, of course, but something more than the passing of time and age have led us to our current situation.

Today, at the helm of the TTC are accountants, planners and engineers and the board of directors and its leadership are politicians. The public face of the corporation had been its general manager up until June of 2006, when as was stated, “political interference” from his commission overlords prompted Rick Ducharme to quit as chief general manager of the public transit commission.

So who is running the TTC today? The chairman, a politician is still there but in obvious turmoil so we’ll give him a pass. The general manager is a civil engineer who joined the commission early in his career and is the only GM to have been promoted to the position from within. He’s a company man, appears to understand the union culture and as far as we can tell (no wildcat strikes lately) labour unrest is in check under his leadership.

Recently, recognizing that the commission was experiencing public relations challenges he struck a "blue ribbon" panel led by a local hotelier to examine the problems and recommend solutions.

In my mind, this action of TTC brass reaching out for help from its customer base, the hospitality industry and private sector, to focus their attention on customer service was an important first step in admitting they don’t have the expertise to effectively address these important concerns.

Further, it appears the TTC may have lost sight of their reason for being – to provide quality service to its customers.

The TTC boasts one of the safest public transit systems in the world and the ratio of fare box revenue to operating costs is one of the best in North America -- if not the best.

For this we can thank the engineers and accountants, but we shouldn’t be surprised that a service led and managed by accountants and engineers isn’t customer focused. It’s not their fault; they don’t have the training nor are their brains wired to manage the complexities of operating a transit system from a customer perspective. This coupled with the fact that the TTC has been crying poor, and for good reason, for as long as I can remember.

Their corporate culture has lost the ability to dream.

Customer service challenges aside, what becomes really difficult to understand is how we could be investing billions of dollars expanding light rail across the city before we’ve addressed the state of repair of existing stations. I suspect the TTC has an answer for this and it will be interesting to learn how they respond to business leaders who are growing increasingly frustrated by an organization that seems to have forgotten they’re supposed to be the "Better Way."

About Lorenzo Mele

Public transit a necessity

Pat Capponi.

I love to walk, I do it every day, for health, for stress, to think out difficult problems.

It wasn't always something I enjoyed, but now that I'm working, I can afford good shoes and proper socks, I can dress against the cold, and when its hot, I can stop and have a cool refreshing drink on a patio somewhere. I can visit different neighborhoods, enjoy gardens with their floral gifts, feel a part of the world. And if I get tired, I can use my bus pass to get home. 

Not so long ago, walking was the only alternative to staying in place.  The price of a TTC ticket was too high, even just one way.  I simply didn't have the money to spend on this luxury. Walking hungry and cold and tired, walking on blisters or untreated corns, walking weighed down by hopelessness and despair was never much fun, watching as buses roared past, filled with people with options, with lives..  Now the price of a one way fare is up to  $3, we've removed public transit as a possibility for far too many.  Three dollars can be the difference between eating and going hungry.

The poor are stuck in their neighborhoods, effectively shut in since we've priced transportation so high. Job searches are out, as is the prospect of real grocery stores instead of the high priced corner variety store. For those on social assistance it just slams the door on opportunity, with a very final sounding thud.  Allowing those in need to have a bus pass increases their chances of making their way out of poverty, of seeing other ways to live. 

Public transit is one of life's necessities, and we should treat it as such.

About Pat Capponi

Let's preserve the Gardiner

The Gardiner Expressway is one of the main transportation arteries that connect our city. While I would like everyone to arrive at each of their destinations by public transit, that is a completely unrealistic desire as cars are such an intrinsic part of our transportation network.

I have heard of many different plans for dealing with the deliberately unkempt and deteriorating elevated section of the Gardener Expressway and I think that any plan that involves demolishing it and putting traffic at grade will be a huge mistake.

We have already seen the increases in travel time for those who must use the east section of the Gardiner that was demolished and incorporated into Lakeshore Boulevard a number of years ago and I don’t think we want to repeat this mistake again. Burying the Gardiner ... well, I think all I need to mention is Boston’s Big Dig and that idea can be sent out the window.

I just heard about a very interesting proposal to cover the elevated section of the Gardiner with a suspended green roof that would also function as an elevated park. The proposal is called Toronto’s Green Ribbon.

I like this idea as it retains one of the main arteries and improves on it. This proposal may reduce the maintenance costs on the roadway as the road will be covered from the elements and will not need to be salted in the winter -- road salt is one of the main reasons for the deterioration of the structure. It also fits with the City’s mandate of incorporating green roofs into the City. While a covered roadway was probably not the original idea behind the Green Roof By-law, a green roof over a roadway fits nicely with the By-law and could be a huge promoter for it.

We fight to preserve building and structures with far less history and purpose all over the city. The Gardiner was originally conceived to link the towns and villages that were incorporated into Metropolitan Toronto and is a symbol of that amalgamation. It also serves to transport many, many people on a daily basis. Let’s not try to wipe out a productive piece of our City’s history, but let’s work with its challenges and try to improve on the Gardiner and our City in the process.

About Adam Zendel

Why a $5 road toll makes good sense

Lorenzo Mele.

Congratulations to Sarah Thomson, candidate for Mayor of Toronto, for introducing us to her bold vision to support transit expansion in the city. Thomson seems to understand that Toronto needs more than a "cap in hand" funding strategy to support transit expansion since senior levels of government are growing weary of bankrolling our transit vision. And we can’t forget that once the subway and LRT systems are built, money is needed to operate, maintain and ultimately replace them.

The challenge is that such a powerful economic measure must be considered in broader terms than simply collecting $5 from each motorist using the DVP and the Gardiner Expressway to fund subways instead of light rail transit.

As a candidate in a municipal election, it takes courage to introduce unpopular ideas, and it would be unfortunate if we devolve the important discussion that Thomson has started down to the simple "war on cars" or 416 versus 905 struggles. We deserve an informed civil debate to better understand how we might apply a tried-and-true economic strategy to improve traffic congestion, air quality, and fund our transit and cycling dreams.

Road pricing or tolls were used in Roman times, places like Singapore continue to evolve road pricing schemes first introduced there in 1975 as a way to manage ever-growing traffic congestion, and charging a fee for a good or service is the very foundation of our revered market economy.

The "law of supply and demand" is applied effectively to virtually every aspect of our consumer society, save for transportation. Tolls or road pricing implemented strategically across the GTA and Hamilton (not only on the DVP and Gardiner Expressway) and combined with improved transportation services (transit, bike lanes, rapid transit, vanpools, carpool lanes and parking lots, community shuttles) and better land use planning that puts people and the places they need to go to closer together, would transform the way we choose to travel around our city.

Along with rising fuel costs, road tolls would give motorists an economic incentive to seriously consider travel choices other than the private automobile. Overnight we would see increases in carpool activity, and transit use, more employers would allow their employees to work from home, and some people might decide to work closer to where they live or live closer to where they work so that they could cycle or even walk to work.

The interesting thing is that the future is here with respect to road pricing since we have a world class example right in our own backyard. According to www.tollroadnews.com in 2009 the 407 ETR (Express Toll Road) had revenues of $560 million and average weekday trips of 380,000.

The challenge with the 407 ETR is that "we the people" no longer own the highway so we don’t share the revenue, and although that’s a matter that I won’t address through this blog, we are collectively benefiting from having a alternate parallel route to the 401 and Highway 7 that is used daily by transport companies delivering our goods and services and commuters, the majority of which likely have a 905 area code.

Experience world wide has demonstrated that travel demand can be better managed with road pricing than without. As our population grows and our municipal budgets shrink due to competing spending priorities, road tolls will become a vital ingredient in our transportation future as we strive to maintain the quality of life of everyone in our city and surrounding regions.

About Lorenzo Mele

Transit woes demand tough love

Our hopes for an expanded transit system across the GTA have been dashed with the tabling of the provincial budget. Our mayor is outraged. He thinks the decision; in his words is "thick" and every candidate for mayor has something to say about Santa Dalton becoming a Transit Scrooge. Like a Hollywood movie script, political theatre needs good guys and bad guys, and besides lamenting about it, again in our mayors’ words, "how are people in our poorest communities going to get to work," what are we and our leaders prepared to do to make our Transit City plan a reality?

There’s no disputing that the current municipal leadership is transit supportive; they’ve been tremendous advocates for Toronto’s transit plans and we’ve seen payoffs in the past. Unfortunately, in tough economic times, which may be with us for some time to come, their passionate and at times zealous approach no longer resonates with our provincial and federal bankers. Our population will continue to grow and the need for expanded transit along with it. The question now becomes – what’s our plan ‘B’?

Will we simply wait to put our cup out again and hope that in a few years time a benevolent Premier or Prime Minister has a change of heart and fills it up with the billions of dollars that are needed for transit? Or do we start acting like the world class city we long to be and use the powers granted to us by the Province under the City of Toronto Act and become masters of our own destiny. If expanded transit is really that important to Toronto and the rest of the region then we need to devise a pan-GTA financial strategy that is dependable and sustainable.

Last year the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) prepared a Territorial Review of Toronto and they determined that traffic congestion, resulting time delays and long commutes cost us over $3.3 billion annually in lost productivity. One of their key recommendations outlined in Chapter 2.3 of their report, was for Toronto and the surrounding region to begin tackling transportation challenges by creating incentives for reducing car use, securing access to additional revenue sources, and longer term funding and investment commitments by our federal government.

When the OECD report was issued last year politicians and citizens alike seemed indifferent and I don’t recall any mass protests or outrage expressed that traffic congestion and long commutes were resulting in a collective loss of an obscene amount of money. The main comment from our Mayor was that the federal government should take note and solve Toronto’s problems. I agree that the federal government does have a role to play on the tax policy and investment fronts but we also need to help ourselves. We seemed to take the news in stride and now as the municipal elections begin to grip our interest no one appears to be connecting the dots.

Consider this – our transit dreams won’t happen without billions of dollars, traffic congestion and the resulting lost productivity costs us billions of dollars, the OECD recommends that we devise incentives for reducing car use and develop additional revenue sources, and we have a Premier acting more like Scrooge than Santa. If someone is brave enough to connect the dots they’ll see that the answer to our problems – road pricing - is staring us in the face.

About Lorenzo Mele