Map 1: Black dots represent Toronto’s modern apartments with existing rapid transit (click on map for larger version)
Map 2: Clusters of Toronto’s modern apartments with the proposed rapid transit lines of Transit City (click on map for larger version)
While most of the current discussion about the TTC involves the weekend strike, there are still other matters to not lose sight of. Spacing’s Sean Marshall sparked a good discussion about the Downtown Relief Line (DRL) a few weeks back which prompted side-discussions about the effectiveness of the Transit City plan to bring LRT to the inner suburbs.
One of the most interesting and important aspects when discussing Transit City is the connection between density and the location of the lines. Graeme Stewart of ERA Architects has developed maps and that help illustrate the potential of Transit City and how the proposed LRT lines relate to Toronto’s high rise communities. The maps are a part of Stewart’s current leadership role on Toronto Tower Renewal, a project that aims to bring energy efficiency and social urban design (among other things) to the vast number of high-rise towers scattered throughout the city. Spacing’s Dale Duncan recently wrote in Eye Weekly about Tower Renewal and its intending results.
Stewart’s most recent post on the Toronto Tower Renewal blog details the history and reasoning behind the development of these post-war neighbourhoods. (A disclaimer is needed here: ERA hired me in the winter as a graphic designer to conceptualize and build a blog for this project). What I find fascinating about the maps is just how many buildings and communities would benefit from these proposed LRT lines — the contrast between the two maps clearly illustrates the dependency these areas have on low-capacity bus routes. While I have no objections to intelligent subway expansion such as the DRL or a Queen/King line, these maps reaffirm my belief that spending money on above-ground LRT is the near future is much more beneficial to Toronto and its residents than the expansion of subway lines to York University and York region.
From Stewart’s post:
…the idea of 1960s development was to minimize commuting by creating self sufficient macro neighbourhoods; providing housing of all tenures in proximity to major employment, and accessible through both private and public transit.
Key to these planning goals was the provision of significant apartment housing, providing both housing for all classes of workers as well as sufficient density to support transit….
Today, despite the intent of self-sufficient communities, these vast areas of the city have become increasingly fragmented and disconnected. In the past decades, places of residence and employment have become disjointed and current transit lines, like the University-Spadina line, are noteworthy for the lack of service they provide to apartment neighbourhoods, which rely primarily of surface routes. Communities themselves, built at the scale of the car and consisting of vast areas of single use zoning, are not meeting the evolving needs of diverse resident communities increasingly going elsewhere for retail and community services.
None the less, if it wasn’t for these high-density clusters, transit would not work within Toronto’s vast post-war communities, and to accommodate the same population our region would be significantly more sprawling.
Read the rest of the Stewart’s analysis.
29 comments
Am I missing something? The second map shows that the with the subway extension to York University, the Spadina-University line would finally begin to serve some high-density clusters — those along Keele and at the Keele/Finch intersection. Right now it serves almost no high-density neighbourhoods. I’m not understanding how this second map provides a compelling argument against the extension, at least up as far as York. (Vaughan is blank white space on the map.)
The cost of building the York U extension is could reach up to $500 million per km. for $3 or $4 billion the extension will serve only two of the clusters. For LRT, the cost per km is much lower, anywhere form $10-60 million (my numbers are just from memory and could be wrong, but the ratio between subway-LRT is accurate, I believe). The proposed Finch West LRT can serve those areas without the subway extension and a tenth of the price.
For $3 billion, you can build LRT that reaches not just 2 clusters, but 10 or 15. The return on investment is so much higher. Transit City when completed will serve hundreds of thousands of riders across the city compared to the 15,000-30,000 that the York extension will accommodate.
Also, investing in money where people MIGHT go to/live at (York region centre) is not as wise as investing where people already live/work. These areas have demonstrated a high demand for transit service and deserve it.
the York U extension was not a priority of the TTC but thrown into their laps by the province. Its a subway plan that is not exactly necessary at the moment. It might be more intelligent to invest in LRT into York U and York Region than build an extrememly expensive subway.
Further to Matthew’s comments on how LRT can provide a more effective level of transit instead of the Spadina extension, I have produced a “what if” analysis of what sort of LRT implementations could exist in York Region if the money for both the Spadina and Yonge extensions were to be used that way. This is on the Toronto LRT Information Page at http://lrt.daxack.ca and a blog entry for it is at http://lrt.daxack.ca/blog?p=33
For the record, I support extending Yonge to Steeles, but all other aspects of these two extensions would be better if implemented as LRT. The mere fact that far more people will be in closer proximity to a rapid transit station means substantial less personal car use.
I provide three different options for Yonge, then expand on the third with two options for Spadina – one with no subway extension, and one with an extension to Steeles only. In the case of no subway extension, I provide for an underground LRT through the campus of York U, and even with everything else in the plan (about 50km of LRT), I am left with $405 million. I suggest that perhaps York U might be able to put that to use, unless of course, they are so dead set on having a “full” subway station at their front door.
This is a great map that shows how useful and important the Transit City LRT proposals are. But it doesn’t suggest that the Spadina Line extension to York is a bad thing in principle. On the contrary, both the Jane and Finch LRTs will be more effective because they will link up to new subway stations that can get people downtown quickly (if that’s where they want to go).
The argument against the subway is the idea that the money is being diverted from other, more efficient transit purposes. But it isn’t, really – Transit City is being funded too. And I doubt the province or feds would give the subway money for alternative purposes instead, rather they would just keep it.
Subways are the backbone of a big-city transit network. It’s good to expand them slowly, in places where there is genuine demand (which is the case for this extension) and where LRT routes will feed into them. Ideally, the new subways should also be accompanied by additional dense commercial and residential development around the new subway stations – that’s the part that needs to be developed in the transit plans.
I’m just particularly intrigued to find out exactly why a Spadina subway extension was brought to the table before a Yonge extension? It’s mind boggling that they would consider pushing a subway line into an area that would service one university, and not much else. Meanwhile, people from all over Toronto and York Region converge on Finch station and jam it to the brim during rush hour.
Cold hard statistics show that Downsview station is anything but a major station when compared to the likes of Finch station. As evident here: http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/subway_ridership07_08.pdf , you can see how Finch station averages 92,610 passengers a day while Downsview averages 37,810. Where is the demand? Where is the ridership?
Potential ridership is key in long term planning, yes, but not when we’re already years behind in servicing existing ridership. This Spadina extension just sounds like another “Sheppard mistake”. If there’s any line that should go into York Region right now, it’s Yonge. Extend it to the major transit hub of York Region at Highway 7, and you’ll connect TTC to YRT, Viva, and GO all in one shot.
On the topic of LRTs, it would be interesting to look into using LRTs instead of subways for future expansion, but it would prove to be messy for connections to the existing subway lines. We need seamless connections in order for transit to become more inviting to the car obsessed communities.
Small problem here: modern apartment complexes don’t necessarily equal density. Since so many are surrounded by fields, the density at the actual neighbourhood level is considerably lower than that prevailing in the central city, where current plans call for…zero new rapid transit. It’s a little weird that Transit City LRT, which the City argues is superior to subways because it is conducive to linear and not nodal service, is being backed up with reference to highly nodal development!
Similarly, a map showing current and near-future intensification activity would look very, very different.
An addendum for those interested: the link is to StatCan’s map of *actual* population density in the GTA, irregardless of whether the density is in 60s high-rises or not.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/popdwell/maps/animations/CMAs/Toronto.swf
Matt: your point is taken. Graeme addresses your assertion in a previous post:
http://era.on.ca/blogs/towerrenewal/?p=14
part of Tower Renewal is to eliminate some of the old zoning regulations to allow for the vast areas around these buildings to be put to better use.
Surprisingly, many of these high-rise ‘Towers in the Park’ districts, are in fact quite dense; often found higher than 200 people per hector. Though coverage is low – 90% open space being highly supported by municipalities at the time – total number of units in relation of land area can be quite high; especially when towers are found in clusters. Moreover, as these buildings have in recent year become home to larger families, (sometime as much as 8 people per unit), the densities are higher than originally intended. Home to many thousands of people per cluster, apartment neighbourhoods support the bulk of the existing surface network, and would provide a good starting point for genuine rapid transit. The low land coverage of these buildings also provides the opportunity for adding addition density.
Raffi wrote, “I’m just particularly intrigued to find out exactly why a Spadina subway extension was brought to the table before a Yonge extension?”
It’s simple: http://lrt.daxack.ca/blog/?p=14
Vaughan was the provincial finance minister’s riding.
Very cool map, Matt C. Does anyone know what is behind the disappearance of the dark purple blob (1971, gone by 1981) in the SW quadrant of Toronto?
The blob looks like Little Italy vicinity. Unless those houses were packed like Lower East Side tenements were at the height of immigration, seems strange. Kensington Market?
Further to Matt C and Jackson Campbell’s comments:
That StatsCan map is very interesting, but one thing that sticks out is that it is quite generalized. A good example is the area around Port Credit. There is an area of Port Credit near the GO station that is very dense with high-rise apartments, but then when you go immediately north of that between the CN tracks and the QEW, there is very low-density large-lot residential development. The StatsCan map doesn’t go to that level of detail, it just shows up as an orange smear.
A similar principle is in place in Toronto. The high-rise clusters are offset by the one or two km beyond with low-density housing. Conversely, the area south of Bloor and Danforth shows up as being much more dense not because of high-rise clusters, but because the predominant building type is small-lot semi-detached houses that most posters here would consider low density, but which is actually a fairly dense building type. I live in one of those semis with a postage-stamp sized piece of property that would probably be considered medium density, even high density, on a dwelling-per-acre basis in 905.
there’s definitely a lot of reason for preferring LRT vs subways – we’ve got a lot of problems throughout the entire region to let over-concentration of resources occur. Yet we likely need heavier investment in an effective east-west core transit line for many reasons.
As for density, there’s a good contrast @Bloor/Spadina where a set of lower-rise townhomes opposite the TTC station have as much density as a tower.
I think we should be resigned to the Sorbara Subway, no matter if it is justified or not. It’s funded, it’s going ahead, and it would be counter-productive to stop it now. As a natural extension to the Spadina line from Downsview, York U isn’t all that unjustified as a terminus, but the Ikea and Wal-Mart in Vaughan isn’t yet the kind of place to build a subway.
This subway extension appeared to be the first step in the Provincial Government’s recent transit-friendly agenda, even if it isn’t the first place a subway should go. It cracked open the idea of regional transit planning, resulting in MoveOntario 2020 (which will fund Transit City) and the new, invigorated Greater Toronto Transportation Authority (now going by a name I still think is bad, but whatever).
LRT, if done right, is a great solution for those corridors where buses can’t easily do the job, and where subways are overkill. For the most part, I support Transit City (the Sheppard-Finch mess not withstanding). But the DRL, and Yonge North (at least to Steeles if not into York Region) merit subways based on current and potential demand.
LRT, for all its positives, isn’t the catch-all solution to transit woes.
Sean Marshall wrote, “LRT, for all its positives, isn’t the catch-all solution to transit woes.”
This is very true. However, given the situation the city is now in LRT will be the best solution in most situations for the foreseeable future.
The official plan shifted in the late 60’s from a balanced roadway-transit concept to a transit-only concept. A great idea, if we only followed through with actually building the rapid transit infrastructure needed, which would have included both subway and LRT. We would now be in a position of selecting which subway or LRT line would be the next for an extension to meet future growing needs.
Instead, we got little pieces of subway here and there, and LRT went out the window when politicians jumped on the “let’s do something futuristic” bandwagon. A true LRT plan for Scarborough became a showcase for what is really classified as an above-ground mini-subway.
With the exception of the Sheppard subway line, all other subway construction after the initial Yonge line from Eglinton to Union has been extensions to current lines. Even the Bloor-Danforth line was originally built as an interlined extension to the Yonge-University line. A conspiricay-minded person would be lead to believe that the designs of Bay and St. George stations, which favour separate operations, was done to make interlining impractical, but interlining capability was necessary to make the new line be an extension for approval purposes.
Sheppard could have been a very useful line, if built from Downsview to Scarborough Centre, but a full useful line is a political hot potato. While it is a huge cost that is difficult enough to obtain approval for, the cynic in me says that the time involved in building such a line makes it difficult for the politicians involved to take advantage of both photo opportunities of ground breaking and opening day.
We now must play catch-up to bring a level of rapid transit proximity to the widest possible area of the GTA to serve the most people.
I strongly suspect that there is no stopping the Sorbara Subway at this point. In theory, if enough people woke up to the true facts of what they get for their money, and realize what else they could get, things could change in time for an LRT alternative to open within the same timeframe. That said, it would be like pulling teeth from a flying pig to get that much public opinion to change.
“The proposed Finch West LRT can serve those areas without the subway extension and a tenth of the price. For $3 billion, you can build LRT that reaches not just 2 clusters, but 10 or 15.”
Right, and also wrong. the spadina extension may serve 2 clusters DIRECTLY, but it serves more when you consider that, for instance, the finch bus never (to my knowledge) diverts south to downsview station. that means people living on finch west of dufferin currently have to either switch buses to go to downsview, or or go all the way to yonge (which i’ll wager a lot of them do). the new subway could easily shave ten or fifteen minutes each way off the commute for a couple thousand people– and divert a few hundred from the yonge line to the spadina line. worth five billion? obviously not, but, you know, it wasn’t built for them, so it’s a nice fringe benefit.
also, this map is interesting, but not altogether useful. some of these “clusters” are a kilometre across, and rope together neighbourhoods that aren’t actually related in terms of patterns of use or movement. most of the people living in graydon hall, for instance (the blob due south of the intersection of the don mills and sheppard LRT routes) don’t have the easy access to the don mills LRT that the map seems to be suggesting, because they’re way up a huge hill; the people at the very southeastern edge of the blob are actually all the way over in my neighbourhood, which is emphatically not don mills adjacent, and will keep riding the 95 bus, i guarantee it.
Scarborough was the ultimate example of how not to plan transit with the orphaned ICTS line. But when they decided to fix the deteriorating line and rolling stock, they made the error of deciding to stick with the current technology and extend it. Either a real LRT line with multiple branches on Eglinton East, Lawrence East and into Malvern via Scarborough Centre, or the subway extension would have made more sense.
Building the subway to Scarborough Centre via Danforth Road and McCowan (or under the Canadian Northern alignment) would have been the same price as the refurbishment of the ICTS line and the extension to the strange terminus of Sheppard and Markham Road. At least people headed to the subway from east and north-central Scarborough and Malvern would have saved a transfer, going directly from bus to subway.
A properly done LRT system would have resulted in the reduction of transfers and travel time as well (the “web of streetcars”) and connect with the Transit City LRT network. I would have been happy with either solution instead, but subway actually works here.
The transfers and travel time issue is going to remain a problem at Kennedy (though supposedly the new ICTS terminal will be built to connect with the subway better), and especially across the top of the city with a disjointed “Transfer City” plan which could be addressed, like building the LRT on Finch East (also full of high-rise clusters) instead of, or in conjunction with, Sheppard, or finishing the Sheppard Subway on the east or west ends, or even converting the Sheppard Subway to LRT – which would make a nice shot to Mel Lastman’s ego.
Sean Marshall wrote about the Scarborough ICTS line, “they made the error of deciding to stick with the current technology and extend it.”
That decision is not as cast in stone as some might believe. One look through the EA Open House materails (http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/pdf/2008-04-15_boards.pdf) and one finds a significant amount of references to LRT options, at least for the extension of service.
The materials do not get into the option of replacing the existing line with true LRT operations, but any extension either to Markham and Sheppard, or all the way to Malvern Town Centre are still very much open to LRT instead of more ICTS.
Cost-wise, retaining and upgrading ICTS and replacement with LRT are similar. LRT makes a big difference for service extension.
It would make most sense for commuters to replace the line. That way more people could be served with transfer-less connections due to interlining possibilities available when the same technology is used. The real reason behind retaining ICTS is politically related to not wanting to embarrass the manufacturer. We will all pay the price for that if not enough of us demand better solutions.
There’s some dubious information being posted here that I’d like to comment on. Apologies in advance for the long post!
The map itself has errors and, as Bethany says, some of the towers shown are one or two kilometres from proposed LRT lines. Why are Bathurst & Steeles and Warden & Finch highlighted? Those massive concentrations of people will not benefit at all from Transit City without spending additional billions of dollars on more LRT lines. A map such as this one only encourages people to play connect the dots when planning transit lines, rather than focus on moving the most people around the city in a timely and efficient fashion. Everyone’s obsessed with “density,” yet neighbourhoods don’t “deserve” transit lines just because they have some apartment buildings. For example, there’s large tracts of Markham that are denser than some of the apartment clusters pictured, yet these Markham neighbourhoods consist entirely of detached houses. If there’s any area that deserves more transit infrastructure, it is, unquestionably, downtown Toronto.
Everyone loves extolling the virtues of LRT on the basis of subways being “too expensive” but please try to be a little more realistic in your cost comparisons. Transit City’s original $6 billion estimate has already been updated to $8 billion and underground segments will eat up most of the cost difference between LRT and subways.
There’s cheaper options than LRT, by the way, such as Rocket/express buses. The 190 Rocket is a perfect example of a very useful, limited stop service that could be introduced to every major road in the city in a matter of months for millions of dollars, not billions. Rocket routes help move more people faster, but they will not trigger much redevelopment…then again, LRT lines may not trigger any redevelopment, either. Without rezoning, transit lines have absolutely no effect on redevelopment; without rezoning, the return on investment is limited to measuring improved ridership and rider satisfaction. In many cases, this can be done with simple bus improvements or should be done with subways. There’s many, many corridors in Toronto where LRT makes sense, but Transit City happened to select some that should see subways, and others that would do just fine keeping their bus service. A balanced approach with modes appropriate to each corridor is needed but it’s not what Transit City (or the average transit ‘advocate’ on the internet) is offering.
The Spadina subway extension is projected to cost $2.6 billion (after inflation); this includes a hefty 26% contingency allotment – a full half billion dollars (!), enough to pay for an entire Transit City line – and it includes tunnelling through largely empty land, not to mention suspiciously elaborate stations and all the vehicles. Still, the Spadina extension should be used by 100,000 riders a day, including many thousands (not hundreds as bethany suggests) that will switch from the Yonge line after transferring from the Finch West bus/LRT. Raffi notes how much busier Finch station is than Downsview, but remember that the two Finch buses pour in at least 1/3 of that 90,000 and none of these riders will take the Yonge subway extension.
In isolation, would the Spadina subway extension be the very best use of capital dollars? No, but it has long been seen as a priority transit expansion, and if the line wasn’t proposed to run into Vaughan, York Region would not contribute to the cost and the provincial government would never have become interested in funding transit after all these years. Simply put, the Spadina extension to Vaughan was required to make Transit City and MoveOntario possible, so give it a little respect. The Spadina extension will be a valuable part of the GTA’s transit network and it is not less useful because Sorbara’s helping it get built. Every time you guys say the Spadina funding could help more people by building LRT lines, I can say that LRT funding could help even more people by improving bus service on Martin Grove or Steeles or Lawrence.
A final point: instead of retaining, renovating, and extending the Scarborough RT, the Danforth line should be extended to Scarborough Town Centre and LRT can be branched off north or east from there. A subway extension + LRT would serve far more people than just an RT reno/extension, and based on what I was told at the April 17 Sheppard/RT EA meeting, the subway + LRT combo should actually be cheaper, too.
Is there an operating budget for these proposals?
If we stretch any type of transit to try and service an area that was designed and built around the automobile, the operating costs are going to forever need subsidizing.
If neighbourhoods were designed around transit you they might actually be able to fund themselves (or even turn a profit).
The plan looks great but there limited value in creating something that isn’t economically sustainable.
I agree with the thoughts about the ‘clusters’ only somewhat relating to the proposed transit lines. However, it seems they none-the less contain the greatest potential to fuel transit as compared with peripheral areas of the City dominated with single detached housing- and especially compared to most comparable American City’s, where a Bathurst and Steeles or Warden and Finch simply do not exist.
The clusters also offer the potential to create new ‘transit oriented development’ in the open space around them. They certainly are an interested starting point for thinking about a transit oriented region, as new growth strategies and transit plans are being drawn up.
Jackson,
Absolutely right. There’s a few small errors with the map, and some clusters, like Steeles/Finch, are shown from benefiting from Transit City and will likely not. But Stewart’s main focus, integrating the slab highrise building with the community is intriguing. The buildings are built quite solidly, the issue is the useless green space in the “towers-in-the-park” planning that has to be rethought. It’s not just transit, it’s the built form and what can be done at the base of these buildings and the empty green space.
As for relating this with Transit City, the map clearly shows some corridors that have been overlooked with that plan, which was a basic network of routes that will hopefully see some more thought as it goes forward. Finch East is one route that is so far ignored by Transit City, but would be logical for all the high-rise clusters it meets, as is Victoria Park or Lawrence East for that matter. There’s another corridor along Weston Road from Eglinton northward, here, I think regional rail, with the Weston and Mount Dennis stops would help as well. Finch West will easily be the most successful surface Transit City route, this is one of my favourites for both connecting to the Keele-Finch subway station, and providing a relatively quick trip from Rexdale and even Mississauga and Brampton bus connections across Finch, and hitting many of these at-need areas.
I’m still not fully convinced about Transit City and its supposed ability to both integrate these neighbourhoods and provide rapid transit at the same time, but it will certainly help improve mobility and attractiveness of many of those highrise clusters.
I’m just particularly intrigued to find out exactly why a Spadina subway extension was brought to the table before a Yonge extension? It’s mind boggling that they would consider pushing a subway line into an area that would service one university, and not much else. Meanwhile, people from all over Toronto and York Region converge on Finch station and jam it to the brim during rush hour.
Uh, because we want people from all over Toronto and York Region to converge on the Spadina subway extension so that the Yonge line is less overcrowded? So that we can extend the Yonge line north to the Langstaff transit hub at 7/407, and get the unending flotilla of buses off that stretch of Yonge St., without hiring Tokyo-style subway crammers? And, finally, to bring the east-west 407 transitway to fruition?
Like most subway stations, it’s not simply about who lives within walking distance. It’s about the bus and LRT networks that will feed the subway. If you didn’t think the Brampton/Vaughan area wasn’t sending heavily-growing traffic onto the network, and didn’t think we need to move north-south traffic off of Yonge and onto the Spadina line, I suggest you reconsider.
There’s a few small errors with the map, and some clusters, like Steeles/Finch, are shown from benefiting from Transit City and will likely not.
The giant dot at Bathurst and Steeles is, indeed, quite bizarre.
(The map of that intersection and heading west, incidentally, would tell a lot more if, as happens all too often, it didn’t cut the world off at the Toronto border — as a look at that intersection’s northwest corner, and then heading west, will confirm.
The railway tracks barely a km north of there are not the political boundary, but they are a much more natural human boundary. Lines on a map and lines of human development are usually not the same and, well, this is one of those times.
this idea of “transit oriented development” in the already built-up suburbs is my worst nightmare. the areas ripe for intensification in the suburbs are the ones that are already dense –the slab-tower complexes, mid-rise villages, etc. because it is impossible to cobble together significant parcels of land for development out of existing single-family subdivisions. moreover, because buildings tend to be in the centres of their lots (highrises and malls/plazas both), any intensification beyond a new tim horton’s/pet valu at the periphery of the parking lot involves significant demolition of existing, and usually affordable and accessible, housing and commercial units. the demolition of the don mills centre mall to make way for an upscale outdoor “pedestrian mall” and a wall of condos is an excellent and sobering case in point.
transit city doesn’t actually propose to improve the transit network; while not all the “clusters” on the map are connected to the proposed LRT, they are ALL already served by transit: those exhaust-spewing beasts we call buses. replacing bus routes with rail this means marginal gains in efficiency and capacity at huge expense, at least initially. but yeah, it will probably make the areas (even?) more attractive to developers.
While I can sympathize with Bethany’s concern about transit-oriented development, she is totally wrong about “marginal gains in efficiency and capacity, at least initially”. The people who are living in the areas have responded quite favourably to Transit City and will use it more often. They are served by transit now, but not very well. The buses are over crowded and get stuck in traffic like any other car.
The capacity will be there from day one since the whole idea is to get people out of their cars and try out transit. The efficiency will be much greater with dedicated lanes and signal priority at stoplights.
Many of these areas in questions are very poorly serviced. They are also home to communities who would greatly benefit from proper servicing; ie access to groceries, daycares, etc. As it is right now, many residents drive, or take the bus for the smallest of errands. The Priority Neighbourhoods established by the City, and Dr. Hilchanski’s ‘Three Toronto’s’ income disparity research illuminate many of these issues, which are for the most part contained in these aging apartment neighbourhoods.
Providing neighborhood servicing within these ‘clusters’ would cut down on car use and create more livable neighbourhoods. Connected with the rapid (or at least better) transit proposed in Transit City, might enable some of these needed changes, as well as connect these neighbourhoods to one another – each of which might evolve their own unique characters.
The trick here is achieving ‘appropriate’ neighbourhood change; transit as a catalyst for the introduction of a diversity of uses response to community need.
In this sense, Transit City, or some variation of it which addresses these neighbourhoods, seems like a great opportunity for a healthier, and more equitable City. It will have to be approached very thoughtfully with all of these issues in mind.
The giant dot at Bathurst and Steeles is, indeed, quite bizarre.
Yep, that’s the one I’m referring to. Dumb typo on my part.
I think it is more important to start using the bases of the towers-in-the-park for local services now than to wait for Transit City to transform these areas. After all, the LRT lines won’t go everywhere, though better transit is a large piece of the puzzle. Re-zoning and secondary plan changes are also required, even more so than LRT.
The neighbourhoods can use social and community services (like the daycares that Jackson mentioned), and also grocery stores (access to fresh produce can be difficult in mnay of these areas – the Dixon/Islington area even lost its Loblaws recently). Rethiking the useless non-recreational space also allows for opportunities for local residents to rent or own condo retail units to establish their own small businesses. Condo retail makes it easier for small investors to move in, and might help keep out the typical Subway or Rabba that can be found in typical rented commerical space below residential areas.
I see the point of Transit City and how its supposed to provide improved mobility for these high-rise clusters. In many cases, I think it will work great. Jane-Finch will be especially well served with two TC lines and quick hop over the Spadina extension. But as mentioned, many of these will not see a rail transit line anytime in the near future, especially those huge Etobicoke clusters along the 427 and Dixon Road. But we can rethink these areas as well. Bus routes can also continue to be improved, perhaps even some parallel express routes that Gutav mentioned as an intermediate step. Route 190, for example, does a great job of connecting the Sheppard highrise cluster between Kennedy and Victoria Park to shopping and two rapid transit lines on a limited-stop basis. It’s relatively quick as well.
The map isn’t just bizarre because high-rise clusters far from Transit City lines are highlighted. There’s many recent condos on that map, yet many 60s rental towers are absent, as well as dozens, if not hundreds, of 90s/00s condo towers; there’s even dots showing buildings that don’t exist.
As bethany says, it’s difficult to see how Transit City has better city-wide transit at its heart. The improved service levels and quality, even though desirable, will be marginal, especially when you consider the hefty price tag and the TTC’s continuing inability to properly operate existing streetcar lines.
If this city primarily cared about improving transit service at Jane & Finch – instead of bringing streetcars or Parisian boulevards to every ward or throwing money at priority neighbourhoods – it could implement Rocket bus service on Finch and Jane instead of waiting many years for billions of dollars of LRT lines to be built.
I don’t see why Transit City corridors and high-rise clusters will become more attractive to developers. Transit cannot be a catalyst for change or development without supportive zoning and all kinds of other policies…just look at Glencairn station. If the detached houses, employment lands, and parkland that front most of the Transit City corridors (not to mention the Corbusierian wastelands surrounding high-rise clusters, which could cheaply be made less wastelandish through simple landscaping) are to be transformed into a mid-rise paradise, the current official plan will have to be rewritten. Sheppard West proves that the Avenue-ization the city desires can be achieved without a new transit line. Heck, look at all the development in the ‘two Kings’ east and west of the downtown core: transit kind of sucks there but that’s not stopping the development.
It’s a shame that Toronto’s transit plans were taken hostage by special interest groups. I’m wondering now if Metrolinx might eventually veto the city’s Transit City plans, or if they might forego their own studies and just support whatever the city’s EAs conclude. Parts of Transit City are certainly worth keeping and should reap benefits, but how can there not be positive aspects of an $8 billion plan?