Two interviews on today’s Metro Morning discussed the question of transit for “service workers” and for suburban travellers in general. The jumping off point for this was a new research paper from the Martin Prosperity Institute and the Cities Centre at UofT: “The Geography of Toronto’s Service Class and What It Means For the City of Toronto”.
The Institute uses a breakdown of jobs into three broad classes (I make no apologies for the political correctness, or not, of these terms, nor for the makeup of each group):
- The “creative class” includes managers, professionals (doctors, teachers) and computer programmers.
- The “service class” includes many job types whose principal characteristic is that they have less scope for independent action (cashiers, food preparers, administrative assistants).
- The “working class” includes those jobs which build things (manufacturing and construction) as well as truckers who move equipment and goods around in support of this class.
This breakdown is plotted by census tract to show the concentration of jobs by place of work (not by residence) for each class and to map this against the location of the transit system’s core routes (the subways). Although GO is not mentioned, it principally serves Union Station which is already within “subway” territory.
The report argues that more could be done to improve transit with better bus services as these could easily be implemented and would cover a much broader territory. However, the report is silent on the subject of travel patterns and of demand for cross-boundary 905-416 trips.
Without question, better bus service would improve the lot of suburban riders. Indeed, the TTC Transit City Bus Plan intends to do just that, but City Council refused to approve implementation of this plan due to budget constraints. The plan isn’t perfect, but it is a starting point for discussions about how the surface network can be improved. If this doesn’t show up as part of the 2011 TTC budget materials, at least as a proposal, I will be very disappointed.
In some quarters, advocacy of buses (like advocacy of subways) is treated as an either-or debate relative to LRT. This is a fundamental flaw. The question for any debate turns on projected demand, road capacity, operational constraints and financial viability.
Many corridors will never have sufficient demand to justify LRT, but they could support intensive bus service. Is the real debate one of giving up road space for LRT? Bus services running in mixed traffic have their problems, and BRT could address these, but at a substantial cost in lost road space. So-called “BRT Lite” is a sham involving mixed traffic operation with selected use of queue jump or reserved lanes where they can be fitted in without upsetting motorists too much.
If we are going to give over road space to transit, then the questions become which mode is appropriate for the route and whether specific technologies impose constraints or provide unique options. An example of the latter is LRT’s ability to operate underground and in trains. Many transit studies have been compromised by looking at all modes for an identical alignment and implementation. This effectively rules out options that could not reasonably be built with one of the modes and limits the alternatives under discussion.
I welcome the report’s focus on the capabilities of surface transit, but warn readers, especially those who would use the conclusions to downplay LRT alternatives, that the real issue here is the lack of transit to large sections of the 416 (not to mention the 905) and its implications for people working in jobs that are located in poorly-served areas.
