The Giltspur Problem

If you follow me on Twitter, you regularly see me bitch about random things. One thing I recently tweeted about was the uselessness of the service provision to Giltspur Drive, near Jane and Sheppard. I expanded this random argument in order to create a specific type of issue experienced with transit planning in suburban environments. That is the purpose of this blog post: it will use the case study of Giltspur in order to create a model for assessing transit planning challenges. I know this sounds boring! It mostly will not be though!

First: Establishing Giltspur Drive

A lot of the writing thus far as spoken about this near-mythical Giltspur Drive, so it's important to set the scene here. Giltspur Drive is a residential east-west road that runs for about 1 kilometre between Jane Street and Northover Street, just south of Sheppard. It acts as a ridge road above the Black Creek, which runs parallel to the south. The street is entirely single-family homes, aside Calico Public School and Giltspur Park. Generally speaking, the street is relatively unimpressive: on my walkthrough, it was not distinct from any other environment in North York.

Looking west on Giltspur, just east of Calico. Calico Public School is on the right.

In terms of transit, Giltspur has service in the form of the 120 Calvington route's loop. As such, service only operates westbound along Giltspur. This seems fine for a random side street, especially considering that some homes in the area are at a significant distance from other transit service, but it struggles practically. For example, while someone can exit an 84 Sheppard West, 108 Driftwood or 984 Sheppard West Express bus at Sheppard and Northover, and transfer to the 120 to reach a destination on Giltspur, you cannot board the 120 on Giltspur and switch to the aforementioned routes. The travel pattern instituted here, which has existed since 1991, is weak, dated, and downtown-centric. I believe the reason the routing has remained untouched is because it is easier to have it run than have a discussion about what can be changed, because route cancellation is something that would inevitably come up.

While some homes on and near Giltspur are at a bit of an unreasonable distance from other transit services (up to 800 metres, double the standard), it is not the only street in this general vicinity with this problem. Both Firgrove and Frith/Stanley have some homes up to a one-kilometre walk to a bus stop. Neither has had any transit service since 1996, when the old 119 Grandravine route was amalgamated into the 108 Downsview (now Driftwood) route. It begs the question as to why trips on Giltspur are deemed to be more important to serve than those on Firgrove and Frith/Stanley, noting it would take little to reroute the 120 to serve Frith/Stanley.

Part 2: What is the Giltspur Problem?

A 'Giltspur Problem' is a term I have defined as being a 'transit planning situation whereby the broader local conditions would justify transit service, but local conditions discourage it'. This creates a tension where a service can only be half-justified, often brought up when service cuts are proposed. I have outlined a number of criteria that helps identify Giltspur Problems.

1) Distant from rapid transit

These areas are not close to rapid transit, and require some surface transit provision to make the connection.

2) Somewhat distant from service transit

After a basic network is installed, these areas are still not particularly close. In the case of Giltspur, it is still far from base network services on Sheppard and Jane.

3) Little importance

Generally, this means low-density housing as the dominate, or only, form. There are few formal employment opportunities, and rarely any attractions.

4) Short or Small

The road or area must be minor compared to the adjacent areas.

5) Little use in the broader network

While some areas fulfill the above, they are not Giltspur Problems because they offer something to the rest of the network. For example, while the Bridle Path area meets the above four criteria, it fails this because it allows for a through service across the broken section of Lawrence, bridging a gap in the network.

Geographic barriers help reinforce this. For example, Giltspur is blockaded to the south by the Black Creek, and to the west by a golf course. Even the major east-west road in the area, Sheppard, ends at the Humber River Valley. These geographic barriers limit broad network usefulness as they funnel services onto one corridor whether or not that level of service is demanded, instead of promoting coverage.

To Summarize...

The first two criteria establish why the service should exist, and the latter three establish why it shouldn't. These points are in a tense relationship because they directly contradict one another. Neither set is more important than the other, hence why the decisions that are made from analyses of them are subjective: Giltspur deserves service, Frith/Stanley does not, Firgrove does not. Giltspur Problems challenge the fundamentals of transit planning specifically because of the challenges.

Giltspur also has one more factor that makes this worse: it has historically had service. When service has continuously been around for thirty years, saying that it will be removed or even just modified is met with many angry reactions. The slowness to update transit services makes it even harder to make even minor changes in the long-term, no matter how needed. So even if it is decided that Giltspur doesn't deserve transit service, the argument will be made: "Well, if that's the case, why wasn't it cancelled thirty years ago?" I mean, fair enough right?

Conclusion

My falling into the rabbit hole of the Giltspur Drive has led me to establish 'Giltspur Problems,' situations that both promote and impede transit service provision. I can't provide solutions to this problems, as they must match local conditions. That being said, there needs to be some degree of consistency (i.e. offer service to all Giltspur, Frith/Stanley, and Firgrove, or none at all), and some willingness to change services as needed, and not let them get locked in to thirty-year old patterns.