Friday, April 25, 2008
GO Double Deckers
According to a posting on Transit Toronto, GO's double decker buses will be entering service on monday morning, running from York U to Oakville.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
TTC – Essential?
I’d like to touch on the idea that the TTC is an essential service. If you pick up a dictionary you might think it is, but if you look at history, you might say no. I for one think it’s odd that all of a sudden after 5 years as Premier, Dalton has come to the conclusion that the TTC is important. I am no fan of Dalton; he grumbles that Harris cut funding to things like Transit, then does nothing to restore that funding. Regardless, that’s another battle for another time. First of all lets examine what it means to be an essential service.
The so-called “Essential services act” (more of a name then a real act, at least in Ontario) defines that certain services are “essential” and that employees providing that service therefore cannot strike. Fire, Police, and Medical services are covered by this. Anyone who’s ever had to be rushed to the hospital would understand why – who’d want the doctor to say “sorry, on strike”. Despite this, certain locales allow some medical professionals to take part in labour action. While I’m not certain of the numbers, I believe that somewhere on the order of 15% of paramedics are allowed to be “on strike” at any time. This means the service is still provided, and it does its job, but not at 100%. It is from this idea that I have my possible solution to the entire problem.
Europe is not faced with the same system-wide strikes that we are, at least not London. Anyone who is aware will know that London is not run by one company, rather different bus lines can be run by different companies, and even the tube is divided amongst two companies. This means that any “Transit Strike” only takes down part of the network. Those who cannot take their usual north-south bus, can hop on the local east-west bus and find another way. This is one of the two options that I see for the TTC – having only part of the network go down at any time.
This could be done in one of two ways. First would be to divide the TTC, and second would be to make certain routes “Essential”. In the first example, we could split the TTC into Bus and Rail services. Perhaps on Monday all rail (streetcar and subway) services will not operate, while all of the regular bus services will. On Tuesday this could be reversed. This would allow the union to call the shots (decide which half of the network goes down) but also allow for people to get where they are going, although with great difficulty. The second method using this option is to declare parts of the network “Essential”. For example, all rapid transit lines plus bus routes on Eglinton, Finch, Dufferin, and so on. This would allow the union to take down a part of the network while leaving a skeleton network operating.
Although these two options have their good points, I favour a third option. Part of the rationale behind any Labour action in any service industry is to make a point – that is to say “we are on strike and here is why”. Having a limit of 50% might do that. This would mean that only 50% of the buses run, and only 50% of the subways. This would mean that each transit vehicle would be very crowded – point made – but that people would still be able to get to their destinations via transit. This would not be without it’s problems, it would have to be decided how 50% would work, especially on routes that are normally serviced by, for example, 3 buses. In general each route would have half as many buses
While neither of these are attractive options, I point out that either a system-wide strike or taking away the right to strike is even less so.
The so-called “Essential services act” (more of a name then a real act, at least in Ontario) defines that certain services are “essential” and that employees providing that service therefore cannot strike. Fire, Police, and Medical services are covered by this. Anyone who’s ever had to be rushed to the hospital would understand why – who’d want the doctor to say “sorry, on strike”. Despite this, certain locales allow some medical professionals to take part in labour action. While I’m not certain of the numbers, I believe that somewhere on the order of 15% of paramedics are allowed to be “on strike” at any time. This means the service is still provided, and it does its job, but not at 100%. It is from this idea that I have my possible solution to the entire problem.
Europe is not faced with the same system-wide strikes that we are, at least not London. Anyone who is aware will know that London is not run by one company, rather different bus lines can be run by different companies, and even the tube is divided amongst two companies. This means that any “Transit Strike” only takes down part of the network. Those who cannot take their usual north-south bus, can hop on the local east-west bus and find another way. This is one of the two options that I see for the TTC – having only part of the network go down at any time.
This could be done in one of two ways. First would be to divide the TTC, and second would be to make certain routes “Essential”. In the first example, we could split the TTC into Bus and Rail services. Perhaps on Monday all rail (streetcar and subway) services will not operate, while all of the regular bus services will. On Tuesday this could be reversed. This would allow the union to call the shots (decide which half of the network goes down) but also allow for people to get where they are going, although with great difficulty. The second method using this option is to declare parts of the network “Essential”. For example, all rapid transit lines plus bus routes on Eglinton, Finch, Dufferin, and so on. This would allow the union to take down a part of the network while leaving a skeleton network operating.
Although these two options have their good points, I favour a third option. Part of the rationale behind any Labour action in any service industry is to make a point – that is to say “we are on strike and here is why”. Having a limit of 50% might do that. This would mean that only 50% of the buses run, and only 50% of the subways. This would mean that each transit vehicle would be very crowded – point made – but that people would still be able to get to their destinations via transit. This would not be without it’s problems, it would have to be decided how 50% would work, especially on routes that are normally serviced by, for example, 3 buses. In general each route would have half as many buses
While neither of these are attractive options, I point out that either a system-wide strike or taking away the right to strike is even less so.
Going back online.
This is a notice that this blog is going back online effective today. Following the completion of my argument and central point that Transit, while useful, is not the be-all-end-all, I intend to turn this into a blog for the discussion of transit, and transit related issues. I will begin that discussion shortly, with a topic on the coming possible strike.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Why I don't take Transit Part 2
A few more answers:
"The bus does not go where most of my work is... much of my work is in mostly rural areas."
"It would require 3 buses ($9/day) [including a transfer stopover] lasting about 2 1/2 hours"
"in my field of work, you need your own truck. Can you imagine getting on a bus with toolboxes, construction gear, a few ladders, etc etc?? "
"Simply put, public transportation is inconvenient ...if I work past 6, I have to wait almost an hour before I can leave...I have to wait 20 minutes then it will take another 45-50 minutes to get there providing that traffic is light and there are no delays with other riders...Once I...woke up late...the next [bus] arrives 40 minutes later."
One of the more interesting I’ve found while asking people I know is that many of them need their car for work. For example, my boss’ wife does. My boss’ boss needs a car for work too. Others need a car because while they might live and work in areas served by public transport, they don’t work in the same place all the time, and they may live far from their workplace on that particular day.
One of the favoruite arguments for transit is that it’s more efficient. I thought about this as I sat in a cab trailing a streetcar on dundas this morning. Sure, there’s 1 passenger in the cab, and perhaps 50 on the streetcar, but is it really more efficient? Well that depends on in what regard. Lets take this example
100 people need to get from Spadina and Dundas to Dufferin and Lawrence. 50 of them take taxicabs and 50 take transit. The 50 that pile into taxicabs use 50 cars. This, if my math is correct, uses 800 feet of roadspace. The other 50 pile into one streetcar and use 54 feet of roadspace. At Dundas and Dufferin the taxicabs turn, while the transit riders transfer into one bus, and now use 40 feet of roadspace! Wow amazing, that’s quite a bit more efficient right? Imagine the petroleum saved too! Of course, none of that takes into account that the cab ride will take you 15 minutes, and the transit ride could take as long as 45. In fact your average transit ride VS your average car ride, within city limits, could take you two to three times as long.
Taking the subway in rush can lower that and at times can be competitive even, which is great if your working at king and bay from 9-5, but what if you work at Warden and Ellesmere from 9-5, or at King and Bay overnight? I’ve done both and trust me, transit is not convenient in these cases. Even during winter storms, I can get home faster by calling a taxicab (including the time it takes for the cab to arrive after placing the call) from my current workplace near Yonge and Finch to my house at Christie and Dupont. If I take a cab I get to sit there and, if I want to, start a conversation. If I don’t, just relax. If I take the subway I get the pleasure of standing for 30 minutes after already working all day, or if I wish to sacrifice 10-15 minutes, get to North York Centre and head north. Of course that is all dependant on the train not going out of service. Even if I do manage to get a seat, people older then me or with children love to single me out (due to my youth) and ask me to get the hell out of my seat so they can sit down. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve offered my seat to many a person, but after a hard days work I just want to be left alone. To be honest, the transit trip home is killing me mentally to the point that I am going to either quit or move because I cannot stand it anymore.
It takes me two hours to get to and from work, whereas driving would do the same for me in one hour. It’s $100 for a metropass, but I’m sure that gas and insurance would run me quite a bit more, even upward of $500 a month. Remember though, that each month I get to spend an extra 20 hours in transit, either riding on crowded morning trains, or on late night trains where teenagers literally jump off the seats and the operators do nothing because they fear for their safety just as much as I’m fearing for mine. This leads us back to a math. I’d need to spend $20 each day to eliminate that extra hour in transit (by driving) For me, that’s not worth it, however there are those for whom it is worth it. Transit is, for them, not efficient because of the time it takes up. Transit might be more efficient in many ways, but when it comes to time, it is not, and for those for whom time is important, the argument that a streetcar can fit more people then a Toyota is not going to go far in convincing them.
"The bus does not go where most of my work is... much of my work is in mostly rural areas."
"It would require 3 buses ($9/day) [including a transfer stopover] lasting about 2 1/2 hours"
"in my field of work, you need your own truck. Can you imagine getting on a bus with toolboxes, construction gear, a few ladders, etc etc?? "
"Simply put, public transportation is inconvenient ...if I work past 6, I have to wait almost an hour before I can leave...I have to wait 20 minutes then it will take another 45-50 minutes to get there providing that traffic is light and there are no delays with other riders...Once I...woke up late...the next [bus] arrives 40 minutes later."
One of the more interesting I’ve found while asking people I know is that many of them need their car for work. For example, my boss’ wife does. My boss’ boss needs a car for work too. Others need a car because while they might live and work in areas served by public transport, they don’t work in the same place all the time, and they may live far from their workplace on that particular day.
One of the favoruite arguments for transit is that it’s more efficient. I thought about this as I sat in a cab trailing a streetcar on dundas this morning. Sure, there’s 1 passenger in the cab, and perhaps 50 on the streetcar, but is it really more efficient? Well that depends on in what regard. Lets take this example
100 people need to get from Spadina and Dundas to Dufferin and Lawrence. 50 of them take taxicabs and 50 take transit. The 50 that pile into taxicabs use 50 cars. This, if my math is correct, uses 800 feet of roadspace. The other 50 pile into one streetcar and use 54 feet of roadspace. At Dundas and Dufferin the taxicabs turn, while the transit riders transfer into one bus, and now use 40 feet of roadspace! Wow amazing, that’s quite a bit more efficient right? Imagine the petroleum saved too! Of course, none of that takes into account that the cab ride will take you 15 minutes, and the transit ride could take as long as 45. In fact your average transit ride VS your average car ride, within city limits, could take you two to three times as long.
Taking the subway in rush can lower that and at times can be competitive even, which is great if your working at king and bay from 9-5, but what if you work at Warden and Ellesmere from 9-5, or at King and Bay overnight? I’ve done both and trust me, transit is not convenient in these cases. Even during winter storms, I can get home faster by calling a taxicab (including the time it takes for the cab to arrive after placing the call) from my current workplace near Yonge and Finch to my house at Christie and Dupont. If I take a cab I get to sit there and, if I want to, start a conversation. If I don’t, just relax. If I take the subway I get the pleasure of standing for 30 minutes after already working all day, or if I wish to sacrifice 10-15 minutes, get to North York Centre and head north. Of course that is all dependant on the train not going out of service. Even if I do manage to get a seat, people older then me or with children love to single me out (due to my youth) and ask me to get the hell out of my seat so they can sit down. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve offered my seat to many a person, but after a hard days work I just want to be left alone. To be honest, the transit trip home is killing me mentally to the point that I am going to either quit or move because I cannot stand it anymore.
It takes me two hours to get to and from work, whereas driving would do the same for me in one hour. It’s $100 for a metropass, but I’m sure that gas and insurance would run me quite a bit more, even upward of $500 a month. Remember though, that each month I get to spend an extra 20 hours in transit, either riding on crowded morning trains, or on late night trains where teenagers literally jump off the seats and the operators do nothing because they fear for their safety just as much as I’m fearing for mine. This leads us back to a math. I’d need to spend $20 each day to eliminate that extra hour in transit (by driving) For me, that’s not worth it, however there are those for whom it is worth it. Transit is, for them, not efficient because of the time it takes up. Transit might be more efficient in many ways, but when it comes to time, it is not, and for those for whom time is important, the argument that a streetcar can fit more people then a Toyota is not going to go far in convincing them.
Expressways and Traffic
To answer the question presented earlier, I present a question of my own – What is “Traffic”? Depending on how you define traffic, you may or may not find an answer. If Traffic is the number of vehicles, then expressways wont do a thing about that unless they have portholes to another universe at the end of them. If traffic is slow-moving vehicles, then expressways will do much to solve this. The reality is that traffic is somewhere in between the two, and that brings me to my point.
Expressways will not eliminate ‘Traffic’, but rather, they will move it around better. Building a highway from the burbs to the downtown core will not eliminate traffic in the burbs or the core, but will eliminate traffic between the two. This is the main objective of expressways, and in that it succeeds. This question comes in response to the proposals by the Toronto Party to expand our existing highway grid. Current proposals are to extend the Allen to Bathurst, however I personally think that, if done right, it can be extended to Davenport and Dupont. Doing either of those will not eliminate traffic in the core, but will reduce it between Eglinton West subway station and wherever the end point is. Take a bus ride on the 63 Ossington bus route and tell me that the traffic on Eglinton West and Oakwood is normal. No, it’s not, because the Allen as it stands is unnatural.
One of the problems with supporting highways in the modern era is that people assume you are talking about highways of the past. They assume that you want to demolish random rows of houses. The Allen could be extended from Eglinton to the park just to the south with a short tunnel. Sure the highway will have to run though the park, but we can find ways to mitigate those effects. People assume any extension of the Allen would destroy Spadina, but the current proposals by the Toronto Party would NOT see the Allen end at Spadina. I personally support a one-lane each direction exit onto Spadina, this is far from the huge neighbourhood destroying freeway that was proposed in the 1970’s.
One of the problems with NIMBY comes to light with highways like the Allen. More well-off residents, such as those in Forrest Hill, have chosen to live between where most residents live, and where most residents work. This means that they either have to go through forest hill, or around it. Currently most people go around, and hence the traffic. Extending the Allen, if done in a smart way, using Tolls even, is the right way to go.
Bringing us back to the original question, the answer is the same as in the first sentence. Either all highways reduce traffic or none do depending on your definition. This extension will not eliminate traffic in the core, but it will reduce traffic on the way.
Expressways will not eliminate ‘Traffic’, but rather, they will move it around better. Building a highway from the burbs to the downtown core will not eliminate traffic in the burbs or the core, but will eliminate traffic between the two. This is the main objective of expressways, and in that it succeeds. This question comes in response to the proposals by the Toronto Party to expand our existing highway grid. Current proposals are to extend the Allen to Bathurst, however I personally think that, if done right, it can be extended to Davenport and Dupont. Doing either of those will not eliminate traffic in the core, but will reduce it between Eglinton West subway station and wherever the end point is. Take a bus ride on the 63 Ossington bus route and tell me that the traffic on Eglinton West and Oakwood is normal. No, it’s not, because the Allen as it stands is unnatural.
One of the problems with supporting highways in the modern era is that people assume you are talking about highways of the past. They assume that you want to demolish random rows of houses. The Allen could be extended from Eglinton to the park just to the south with a short tunnel. Sure the highway will have to run though the park, but we can find ways to mitigate those effects. People assume any extension of the Allen would destroy Spadina, but the current proposals by the Toronto Party would NOT see the Allen end at Spadina. I personally support a one-lane each direction exit onto Spadina, this is far from the huge neighbourhood destroying freeway that was proposed in the 1970’s.
One of the problems with NIMBY comes to light with highways like the Allen. More well-off residents, such as those in Forrest Hill, have chosen to live between where most residents live, and where most residents work. This means that they either have to go through forest hill, or around it. Currently most people go around, and hence the traffic. Extending the Allen, if done in a smart way, using Tolls even, is the right way to go.
Bringing us back to the original question, the answer is the same as in the first sentence. Either all highways reduce traffic or none do depending on your definition. This extension will not eliminate traffic in the core, but it will reduce traffic on the way.
Sorry for the absence.
Sorry for my recent absence, major troubles at work have kept me more then occupied for a few weeks. I’m back to full force, however, and you should expect at least two major posts tonight.
Friday, February 1, 2008
A question
Someone, on another blog, asked me "find me an expressway system that has reduced traffic problems".
I will respond to this question in full right here later, however am rather busy today with other things.
I will respond to this question in full right here later, however am rather busy today with other things.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
"Why I don't take transit"
More comments on this front:
I would have to take 3 buses... If I had a train option I'd take it... My spouse does... His commute is about 30 minutes and he loves taking the train
I drive... to work... it is a 12 to 15 minute ride. If I were to (take public transit) it would take me 45 to 50 minutes
We don't have (public transit)
I did (take transit) for 15 years... It took me 40 minutes. But we live in Georgia now and (it would take too long)
Because I have to walk to the bus stop and its cold in the winter.
I'd have to wait 50 mins after leaving work for the bus
safety issues...
(inclduing)
I'd have to take 3 or 4 buses and walk a half mile through a dicey neighborhood
(and)
a grandmother who was raped after being kidnapped from a parking garage at the MARTA (Atlanta) Lindbergh station in ... June 2002
I would have to take 3 buses... If I had a train option I'd take it... My spouse does... His commute is about 30 minutes and he loves taking the train
I drive... to work... it is a 12 to 15 minute ride. If I were to (take public transit) it would take me 45 to 50 minutes
We don't have (public transit)
I did (take transit) for 15 years... It took me 40 minutes. But we live in Georgia now and (it would take too long)
Because I have to walk to the bus stop and its cold in the winter.
I'd have to wait 50 mins after leaving work for the bus
safety issues...
(inclduing)
I'd have to take 3 or 4 buses and walk a half mile through a dicey neighborhood
(and)
a grandmother who was raped after being kidnapped from a parking garage at the MARTA (Atlanta) Lindbergh station in ... June 2002
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Racession
I was reading wikipedia, and about how Japan’s economy took a nose dive in the 90’s thanks to the bursting of their housing bubble. This created a domino effect on the economy and cause a decade of stagnation in Japan.
I was also reading that the current US sub-prime crisis was triggered by the bursting of the US housing bubble…
I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.
I was also reading that the current US sub-prime crisis was triggered by the bursting of the US housing bubble…
I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.
More "Bus VS Car"
A certain CTV news report tells us that a panel has recommended taking cars out of downtown. According to the news story:
One of the ideas proposed by Dr. David Pearson was to ban private cars on busy downtown roadways. "We need to very quickly begin thinking about banning cars downtown
Personally my favorite part of the article is where they quote dear Dr.David as saying “You have an excellent subway system”. LOL! I wish. I’d rate our current subway system though the downtown as “adequate”, far from excellent. Regardless, this brings up the important point; is it even possible to get all the cars off the road? And if not why not? I’ll leave this one (for now) open ended, but will add three anecdotes regarding this very issue.
Quote:
My job is 17 miles away...I have to drive - either that or take 6 buses and hope none are late!
Quote:
My commute by car... usually takes between 10 & 15 minutes to get to work. Public transit would greatly increase my short commute... My commute would go to about 45-60 minutes
Quote:
Even if I had a choice (which I don't) I would still drive. Many times, on my way home I run errands and have to be able to go somewhere or change plans on a moment's notice. Going from suburb to suburb does not lend itself to mass transit.
One of the ideas proposed by Dr. David Pearson was to ban private cars on busy downtown roadways. "We need to very quickly begin thinking about banning cars downtown
Personally my favorite part of the article is where they quote dear Dr.David as saying “You have an excellent subway system”. LOL! I wish. I’d rate our current subway system though the downtown as “adequate”, far from excellent. Regardless, this brings up the important point; is it even possible to get all the cars off the road? And if not why not? I’ll leave this one (for now) open ended, but will add three anecdotes regarding this very issue.
Quote:
My job is 17 miles away...I have to drive - either that or take 6 buses and hope none are late!
Quote:
My commute by car... usually takes between 10 & 15 minutes to get to work. Public transit would greatly increase my short commute... My commute would go to about 45-60 minutes
Quote:
Even if I had a choice (which I don't) I would still drive. Many times, on my way home I run errands and have to be able to go somewhere or change plans on a moment's notice. Going from suburb to suburb does not lend itself to mass transit.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
and on transit, in general
I sometimes get worried by the direction I see transit discussions going. People, especially on blogs and the internet, will talk about transit and how they want to improve it, but at the same time there seems to be a hate on for anyone with a car. There is the ever-popular phrase that we are in a “car-culture”. I sat down and thought about that one day, what does this mean? Well, for one thing, on your stereotypical date with someone of the opposite sex, the guy will drive the gal home in his car. Sure, you could always take the bus, but it does not seem to have the same luster that a car does. Then there’s the vision of the soccer mom who, of course, drives a minivan. Next you have the suit-and-tie office worker, who really gets to unwind after work in, you guessed, his sporty car. I don’t disagree that such a culture exists, and that it’s actually harmful. I agree fully that the car culture need to come to an end. What I disagree with is those who take this idea too far and blame anyone with a car for all the problems in the world.
Take for example, discussion about mixed-traffic streetcars. Every time the topic is raised, on blog after blog, I see either the blogger or the commenters speak about how this argument by drivers that streetcars cause traffic is bunk. They say that if a mixed-traffic streetcar is anti-car, then so what. They support it because it is anti-car, without stopping to think that it is also anti-transit. Lets take for example, one car and one streetcar. The streetcar pulls up to a stop, and opens its doors. Since it is blocking both lanes, the car must stop. The driver of the car, not wanting to be stuck behind the streetcar decides to pass him before the next light, and does so. The next light is red, and now we find the streetcar is stuck behind the car, and cannot open it’s doors as it is not at the stop. It’s usually around here that the car-haters will come in and remind people that streetcars carry more people then cars do, or that they cause less pollution. They will in effect, blame the car driver for not taking the streetcar. The underlying assumption is that everyone can take transit, and therefore, they should. This is false. For one thing, you can drive across a municipal boundary without a problem, but on transit this will mean a transfer. You can drive anywhere there is a road (and there are a lot of those) but you can only take the bus where there is a bus route (not nearly as many). What if you were working installing a new bus stop at the end of a new bus line. You cant take the bus, because the route does not exist yet. Despite this, people continue to rail against drivers and make arguments that driving should be made harder so more people take transit. They call this “Induced Demand”, a cute little term.
Frankly, the idea that you have to force people on transit by making driving impossible is a very anti-transit idea. I’m sure those of us with siblings know how it feels when your mother orders you to play with your younger brother or sister. Obviously, you don’t want to play with them. The message this sends is that the only way that they will get played with is if you force it on someone else. What does that say about the kid? Not much. I see forcing people on transit the same way. If you have to force someone on a bus, it says pretty shitty things about that bus. If we want more people to take transit, we have to make transit more convenient for people.
In a dream world, everyone could take transit, but in reality, this is not possible. I do see signs that the “Car culture” is fading. For one, more and more people are starting to think about the environment. Outside of this, I don’t see any reason that transit ridership, as a mode-share, cannot reach 2/3rds or 3/4ths of all trips. There will always be, however, cars, and there will always be people who take them as an alternative. Cost is usually not the reason, its mostly time. What if to get to your destination you had to make three or four transfers? It might take you over an hour to do a trip that could take 15 minutes by car. What if you needed to buy a week’s worth of groceries, are you going to lug all that stuff on the bus? What if you needed to run errands and go to locations all around the city. By transit this could take you all day, by car, a hour or two. What if it’s freezing outside, and the nearest bus route runs every 30 minutes? Sure you could try to time it, only to get to the stop in time to see the bus drive away. Transit cannot do what cars can, nor should we expect it to.
There are some pro-transit bloggers, such as Mr. Steve Munro, who says clearly that he does not own a car. It might surprise some, after reading the above, to learn that I do not own a car, nor do I intend to buy one any time soon. Despite this, I will take cabs, at certain times, or to certain places. I live on Dupont, near Shaw, a 15 minute walk from the Bloor subway. From there I can go to Yonge, and head up to St.Clair, where I usually get off to grab some food before I start my shift at work. If I take transit the whole way, which I do almost every day, I will be more then halfway to my workplace, timewise. I work south of Yonge and Finch. Alternatively, and I do this when I’m late, or it’s very cold, I could get a taxi to take me to St.Clair station. This cuts my travel time nearly in half, but will cost me $10. People will usually talk about “A few seconds” when someone talks about running for a bus. What many people fail to note is that all of these “seconds” add up. I could spend a minute waiting for the light to change at an intersection. Then a few minutes waiting for the subway. A few minutes waiting for the next one after I transfer. Maybe I need to grab a bus before or after my trip. Using an example of someone who takes a 5 minute headway bus route to the Bloor subway, outside of peak, then gets off the Yonge subway and takes another 5 minute headway bus, you could end up with a 20 minute variance in when you arrive at your destination. If this is an otherwise short trip, it leads to annoyance. It takes me 55 minutes to get from my house to work, on average. 12 to walk to the subway station from my house, and 7 from the station to my workplace. One third of my time is spent walking. People might ask why I don’t take a bus to the subway? The answer is because it takes too long. I live almost dead between Ossington and Christie. The Christie bus runs every 30 minutes, so forget about that, I wont risk the driver being 3 minutes early and making me 33 minutes late. Ossington runs often, on paper, but by the time I walk to the stop, wait for the bus, then have the bus take me to the station, it can take 14 minutes, and that does not count the extra time in the tunnel. It all comes back to the fact that transit cannot be a doorstop service for everyone, where as your car can be. It is for this reason that you will never get rid of cars, and for this reason that I find it both silly and offensive to have a hate on for those who drive.
It is my hope to offer suggestions and discussion of transit from a balanced prospective. One that recognizes that you don’t need to hate drivers to love riders.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Welcome to Nixtuff
Welcome to Nixtuff. This is, I hope, the first in a long line of blog posts. I intend this blog to focus on two main issues – Politics and Transit, as well as areas such as Urban Planning, Transportation in general, and the occasional personal post or two. It is my hope to be a source for information as well as a catalyst for discussion. Feel free to visit my forum “The Information Bin” at anytime, at this address: http://z3.invisionfree.com/The_Information_Bin/index.php?act=idx it has great information about Transit in Toronto, as well as discussions about such things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)