Debating Transit Priority Lanes
Every decision has a trade-off
In my home city of Toronto there is a fierce debate going on about whether to convert one of the two traffic lanes in each direction to bus-only lanes. While this was first put forward as way to improve traffic flow for next year’s FIFA World Cup, the proposed changes are permanent. The pro-transit and pro-driving camps have really dug in on this one, and city staff have already watered down the original proposal to reduce the length of the lanes. City council has a big decision to make.
This situation is a great reminder that there is no urban design decision that fully meets the needs of all stakeholders. Every decision has a trade-off. Transit riders outnumber drivers on these routes by more than 2:1, so transit priority lanes will result in more people reaching their destinations sooner. At the same time, tens of thousands of drivers will see their travel times increase as they are limited to one lane instead of two. It’s no surprise these drivers are not happy about this, and are coming up with all kinds of other potential negative outcomes.
One that comes up often is a decline in patronage of businesses along these routes because it will be harder to reach them by car, and there will be less available parking. Fair enough, that’s certainly possible, although I haven’t seen any data that shows how many of these specific customers drive and park to get to these businesses. Such data would also show how many transit riders patronize these establishments, and whether better transit service might, in fact, increase business overall.
If you’ve been following along here at Atom & Byte so far, you’ll notice a recurring theme is that cities are systems of systems. Changing one thing at a time without considering the overall system is not effective. The same concept applies here: simply adding priority bus lanes is not a complete solution. Here are some other things to consider along with this proposed change:
A network of transit priority lanes, rather than just two streets
Planning parking comprehensively in the area, including public and private lots, and street parking on surrounding side streets
Bike lanes, especially a contiguous bike lane network in the surrounding area
Transit-oriented development in the area, especially mixed-use and increased yet gentle density
Encouraging more pedestrian traffic to patronize the businesses with enhanced streetscaping and public space improvements
Coordination of loading zones, including use of the transit lanes during off-peak hours
Dynamic priority lanes using adaptive technology, where lanes can be opened up to private vehicles when needed
Improving the realiability of the busses through better headway management, leveraging real-time data, so they can take advantage of the priority lanes
A more complete and comprehensive plan will not avoid the trade-offs, but will maximize the benefits for each type of stakeholder. It’s also important to measure, monitor, and openly report on how these changes impact travel time, average speed, and capacity for all transportation modes, avoiding congecture and wasted energy on debates not based on reality.
Toronto is no longer in the 1900s, it’s a massively growing metropolis, and it needs contemporary solutions for streets - like European cities have implemented. They recognize that cars are far from the best transport mode for cities, so have made 100s of kms of tram and bus lanes, bike lanes, as well as pedestrian streets. North American cities (Montreal being the outlier in pedestrianizing streets downtown) are stuck in 1900s car primacy for mobility. Unsurprising as the US and Canada are also major oil & gas producers, and their billions buy a lot of influence with politicians, media, and hence the general public.