A Lot of Transit Infrastructure is Really for the Cars: A Look at Toronto and Guelph

 Hey pals!

One of the most recognizable pieces of public transit infrastructure is the bus stop. They can look different, have different amenities, but serve the same purpose: to allow people to board and alight buses. However, in this piece, I argue that many bus stops are not transit infrastructure, but are car infrastructure that, once again, prioritizes automobile traffic over everyone else. I will take a look at two cities in southern Ontario, being Toronto and Guelph, and look at how they handle bus stops in a picture-essay format.

Part 1: Toronto

One of the most pervasive ways that automobility is situated within hard infrastructure is bus alcoves. Everyone knows them to see them, little lanes that allow buses to serve stops without 'blocking traffic'. I put blocking traffic in quotes because that's a very car-brained take on what is simply transportation. 

The issue with alcoves is that they force buses out of the flow of traffic, which means bus drivers must fight to reenter the flow, which becomes a problem on busy routes with a lot of them. This slows down trips for bus passengers further. The few-second inconvenience for drivers is deemed to be more important than the speed of everyone else's trip.

The picture above is of the southbound stop on Victoria Park at Ruscica. As you can see, the stop is in the right turn lane, so that the two through lanes have unimpeded access down the street. The stretch of Victoria Park between Eglinton and Lawrence has so many alcoves, that drivers have nicknamed it 'Vicious Park'.

This picture is of the southbound stop on Islington south of Rowntree Mill Road. This alcove, again, is to let traffic flow freely. As the stop is on the farside of the intersection, it stops cars from stopping within the intersection. However, cars should never be within the intersection unless they can clear it ANYWAYS, so once again the onus of good driving is removed from drivers, and everyone else must suffer for it (even if relatively minor). 

Even on low-traffic roads, car movement is prioritized. This stop is northwestbound on Elmhurst at Hinton. Buses have an alcove, then must make a left turn onto Hinton from the alcove, which is completely insane! Since it's a stop sign anyways, cars have to stop, so what is the rationale here?

One positive is the temporary stop on Donlands at Donlands Station, due to elevator construction in the bus terminal. Here, the curb for the 56 stop has been extended out into the lane, so that way the bus need not merge in order to pick up passengers. This should be the norm throughout the city, especially on streets that permit parking, or downtown where streetcars stop in the middle of the street anyways. However, as the next picture shows, this is clearly not the case...

This view is the southbound stop on Carlaw at Langley. There is always a car parked where the Dodge Charger is, and the bus always has to navigate around it. If there is such an issue, the city should be extending the curb out so the bus need not merge, just has been done at Donlands Station. The car above, by the way, is parked quite far back compared to where vehicles normally are.

As you can see, car movement is prioritized over, frankly, common sense. 

Part 2: Guelph

I like Guelph, it's a nice city. However, I would argue is the city that gives the most leeway to cars when considering transit stops, even more so than London or Kitchener. There are two ways in which this is done: limiting the number of stops, and offsetting them from the actual intersection that they are meant to serve. 

In terms of limiting stops, Janefield Avenue is a good example. The southbound buses along Janefield have a single stop, at 165 Janefield. However, distance along, stops should exist at Mason and at Torch, especially considering the low speed limit on the street. Why don't they exist? Having the bus stop just once along a single-lane road allows for cars to be delayed less. This has a material impact on passengers: the walk to a bus stop may be much longer than needs to be for the sake of automotive speed.

The intersection of Edinburgh and Kortright provides a example of offsetting stops. The stops on Edinburgh are 200 metres south of the actual intersection. By situating them closer to Rodgers Road, cars at the intersection can turn freely, and are not blocked. Traffic lights were recently added at the stop, as so many people were jaywalking.

This stop on Scottsdale is situated a few dozen metres back from the lights at Ironwood. As such, when the bus services the stop, cars can get in front of the bus to make turns, or continue straight through. Traffic is never insane on this street, there are never delays, yet somehow forcing a turning car to sit behind the bus is heresy.

My last example in Guelph is in the southern reaches of the city. The green line is the 99 Mainline route, shown at the busy Gordon/Clair shopping area. Instead of stopping at the corner of Gordon and Clair, before turning, the bus turns, and travels nearly the entire way down to Gosling before dropping off at the red pin. This clears Gordon entirely for those headed to the 401. For passengers, however, walks to important destinations, such as the Goodlife (purple pin) are increased by 200 metres each way. Minor, sure, but it's completely unnecessary. The GO bus even stops right at the corner, why can't Guelph Transit?

Concluding Thoughts

This post doesn't have a true conclusion, I guess it is just to highlight how deeply entrenched cars are in all of our transporation systems. Minor delays for drivers are seemingly more important than safe, convenient transit stops for people, including those who may not be able to make long walks. This trade-off shows just how weak automobility is, in my mind: for automobility to be function, conditions must be manipulated to perfection, or the system as a whole cannot stand. Building all transportation on this, then, is a grave mistake.