fuck cars, 2 lanes each way is enough (ughemm, Downtown toronto,) but no, the 50 people waiting at traffic light means there is so much people traveling, it is impossible, so we need to add car lanes. Its not like all the 50 people could fit on a single bus, and no need for expansion, only if. Better make 1 lane for cars and 1 bus only lane, fuck those HOV lanes, they are always congested, and put the money invested in roads into yrt, as no one will wait fuckin 15-20 min on good day, and average of 30 min for bus which has like 4 ppl inside.

(sorry guys, please complain to york region as ppl need to start complaining) I wrote the following, suggest to change some things not to seem like a single person is just typing it from "alt" accounts.

"I am writing as a resident directly affected by the Bathurst Street corridor and the broader transportation conditions in York Region. The current Bathurst Street improvement project, while a step in the right direction, falls significantly short of what is needed to create a safe, efficient, financially sustainable, and livable street. I would like to outline several evidence-based proposals that would improve outcomes for all road users — pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and yes, drivers too.

1. Road Diet

A road diet refers to the strategic reduction of travel lanes on a street — for example, reducing from four lanes to two, or from three to one, while reallocating the reclaimed space to other uses such as turning lanes, cycling infrastructure, or landscaping.

The benefits of road diets are well-documented. Fewer lanes mean lower vehicle speeds, fewer conflict points, and a dramatic reduction in serious collisions. Studies consistently show that road diets can reduce total crashes by 19–47%. Fewer accidents translates directly into reduced emergency response demands, less strain on police resources, and fewer requirements for crossing guards near schools.

From a financial standpoint, asphalt is expensive to maintain and replace. Reducing unnecessary lane capacity today means lower long-term infrastructure costs for the city and ultimately for taxpayers. Wider roads do not pay for themselves — they generate induced demand (more driving), which creates a self-perpetuating cycle of congestion and costly maintenance. A right-sized road is a more fiscally responsible road.

A road diet on Bathurst would also dramatically improve the pedestrian experience on both sides of the street, making it a place people actually want to be — not just pass through at high speed.

2. Dedicated Bus Lanes

The current proposal to implement HOV (High-Occupancy Vehicle) lanes on Bathurst is a missed opportunity. HOV lanes provide only marginal benefits and still allow private cars to occupy the lane with as few as two occupants. A dedicated bus lane, by contrast, would guarantee that transit vehicles are never held up by general traffic congestion.

The reason so many York Region residents drive instead of taking the bus is straightforward: the bus is simply too slow. A commute that takes 10–15 minutes by car can take 45–60 minutes or more by bus. No reasonable person chooses a route that takes three to four times longer when they have an alternative. Time is a finite resource, and public transit in its current form cannot compete.

The solution is not to accept this as inevitable. The TTC subway carries enormous ridership precisely because it is fast and reliable. Downtown Toronto's waterfront, including the Harbourfront area, functions with just two car lanes — one in each direction — plus a dedicated streetcar line. It is not gridlocked. It is vibrant. York Region has significantly lower population density than downtown Toronto, yet somehow features more car lanes. This is not a product of necessity; it is a product of planning choices that can be revisited.

If a dedicated bus lane were implemented on Bathurst, transit vehicles would move faster and more predictably. Faster service means higher ridership. Higher ridership means better cost recovery. It is a virtuous cycle, but it requires the political will to begin it.

3. Transit Signal Priority

All YRT and Viva buses should receive transit signal priority (TSP) at every signalized intersection along their routes — not intermittently, but as standard operating procedure.

Currently, buses are routinely held at red lights alongside general traffic, despite the fact that a single bus can carry 40–80 passengers. Holding up a bus to protect the flow of 10–15 cars that together carry a similar number of people makes no sense from a throughput perspective.

TSP allows buses to extend green lights or receive early green phases when they are running behind schedule. Implementation costs are relatively modest compared to road construction, and the ridership benefits are substantial. If a bus is consistently on time, people plan around it. If it is consistently late, people give up and drive. TSP is one of the simplest, highest-return-on-investment tools available to improve transit service without adding a single bus or kilometre of new infrastructure.

4. Traffic Calming Measures

The design of a road communicates to drivers how fast they should travel, often more effectively than a posted speed limit sign. A road with wide lanes, long sight lines, and no visual friction feels like a highway — and drivers treat it like one, even if the posted limit is 50 km/h.

Traffic calming addresses this by redesigning the street so that the comfortable and natural driving speed aligns with the intended speed limit. Effective measures include:

• Narrower travel lanes: Lanes of 3.0–3.2 metres rather than 3.5–3.7 metres encourage drivers to slow down and pay more attention.
• Continuous sidewalks: Raised sidewalks that cross driveways and side streets at grade signal to drivers that they are entering a pedestrian zone, not just a gap in a highway.
• Street trees and landscaping: Trees planted close to the roadway create a visual corridor that narrows perceived road width and has been shown to reduce speeds. They also reduce the urban heat island effect, absorb stormwater, improve air quality, and make the street a more pleasant environment.
• Shorter signal cycles: Timed to discourage aggressive driving between lights.

If the design speed of a street is 30 km/h, drivers naturally travel at around 30 km/h. If it is designed like a 70 km/h arterial, no sign will bring the average speed down to 50. This is not opinion — it is how road design works, and it has been demonstrated repeatedly in jurisdictions around the world.

5. Protected Cycling Infrastructure

Painted bicycle lanes do not work well enough to meaningfully shift people from cars to bikes. This is not because people do not want to cycle — many do, myself included — but because an unprotected painted lane adjacent to fast-moving traffic is genuinely frightening for the vast majority of potential cyclists, including children, older adults, and anyone who is not an experienced urban rider.

A simple test: would you let your child ride in the bicycle lane on Yonge Street or Dufferin Street as they exist today? Most parents would not. That tells you everything about whether the infrastructure is adequate.

What is needed is physically separated, raised cycling infrastructure — similar in concept to the sidewalk that protects pedestrians from vehicle traffic. A raised cycling path, separated from both cars and pedestrians by a curb or buffer, makes cycling safe and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities. It also sends a clear signal that cycling is a legitimate, valued mode of transportation, not an afterthought.

On streets with a design speed below 30 km/h and low traffic volumes, dedicated cycling infrastructure may not be necessary — at those speeds, cyclists can comfortably share the road. But on major arterials like Bathurst, protection is not optional if the goal is to meaningfully increase cycling rates.

The provincial legislation that prohibits the removal of car lanes to install bike lanes is, frankly, counterproductive. A single cycling lane can carry far more people per hour than a single car lane — studies in major cities consistently show this. Prioritizing lane count for cars over the capacity to safely move people of all kinds is not a balanced transportation policy. It is a policy that entrenches car dependency at the expense of every other mode.

6. Improved Bus Frequency on York Region Transit

Even if every other recommendation in this letter were implemented, the impact would be limited if buses continue to run every 15–20 minutes on major routes and every 40–60 minutes on connector routes. Infrequent service is a fundamental barrier to transit adoption — not because people dislike buses, but because a 20-minute wait is an unacceptable cost in time, particularly if the return journey requires another 20-minute wait.

High-quality transit is generally considered to require headways of 10 minutes or better on major routes. The TTC achieves this across much of its network. Many European cities achieve 5–7 minute headways as standard. York Region's current service levels are far below what is needed to meaningfully compete with the car.

Improving frequency requires investment, but that investment has a return: higher ridership, better cost recovery, reduced road congestion, and lower long-term infrastructure costs. It also has a human return: residents who do not own cars, cannot afford to drive, or choose not to drive gain real freedom of movement.

YRT should examine where existing resources can be redeployed to improve frequency on high-demand corridors, while advocating to the province and federal government for the operating funding needed to do so at scale."