Tuesday’s Headlines

14 comments

1. I do not always agree with James, but he’s right: we won’t get decent transit until density supports it. A fine argument for the Downtown Relief Line. Also a fine argument for intensification of avenues and transit hubs.

   However, since the routing of lines is in the hands of politicians, not some kind of independent agency that would look foremost at moving the highest numbers of people, we get idiocies like TTC lines extended into the 905, so 416 residents who pay the most for it never get to sit down, and don’t get the DRL, which would require the lowest subsidy per ride of any new proposed line. We also get more streetcars, without a strong signal priority over other traffic, to keep them moving. These streetcars will become the excuse to keep us from getting subways for another generation, not to mention that at four times the capacity of a bus, they will be sent one-quarter as often…

   What we need, and can justify now, is the DRL. We also have to do something more intelligent about the signaling for present streetcars. Apart from that, the rest is best done in this city by buses, local and express. This is a spread out middle-American city, not a dense European or Japanese one where LRTs might work. On any transit route it’s stupid to change over the years from bus to streetcar to subway: why spend the money on the streetcar infrastructure in the interim, an added expense and excuse to delay the subway for decades.

2. I did neglect the 905, even though I commute out to the 905 from the 416 for work. Best served by the continuing expansion of GO, given the hopelessly sprawled nature of the GTA. We do need to branch out from the Union hub, which is stretched at the seams, and need something reliable across the top of the city, even if it is only dedicated lanes on the 401/407 or a ‘busway’ on the Finch hydro lands.

3. Re: Density
   And that’s why I could never be a politician. At mayoral debate, I would just end up screaming “DENSITY, DENSITY, DENSITY!!!” at the other candidates.

4. I agree with James. The DRL should be the first subway priority. The issue of density is not exclusive to population but includes employment density as well. No number of additional condos on Sheppard Ave. are going to increase ridership if those residents are heading out of the city for work. On top of that, subways need more density than streets lined with condos can provide, when behind them are detached bungalows. Lastly relying on population growth projections is tenuous. Population migrates closer to areas with job growth (though lagging). With Toronto’s May unemployment figure (10.4%) and the city more than 1/4 million jobs behind its own forecasts, the ingredients for higher density are not there.

5. Have to agree with Royson James (and the other James) concerning transit infrastructure and land-use planning (ie density). Talking about transit/transportation infrastructure of any sort without addressing land-use planning issues makes little sense. This seems to me to be the real achilles’ heel of the whole Metrolinks initiative to bring some regional planning to transit infrastructure across the GTA. — there is no corresponding focus on regional land use policy to intensify densities. (Instead, in a bizarre twist, the province seems to be catering to the whims of particular developers, approving subdivisions that will further sprawl.) Without addressing the land use policies that have lead to the mess we are in (ie, each municipality more or less setting its own zoning), viable solutions are less likely to be found. The province has the authority to establish more appropriate density targets and it’s time it started using it given that municipalities have shown over the decades that they have little ability to work together for the benefit of the whole region.

6. People don’t even know which neighbourhood has the highest density in Canada. It changes, but I know that Toronto’s St. James Town and Montreal’s Plateau are close. Now where would you rather live? It doesn’t have to be high rises, surrounded by unused ‘green space’; nor does it have to be three-story walk-ups, with neighbours top and bottom. Intensification with narrow Toronto style ‘townhouses’ have been snapped up across the city. You can fit about four on a regular Toronto lot, if you can access from the laneways and the street. We all win: the developer makes more than four-times what he would from the same lot; the buyer gets a property in the same location with similar square footage at a loss of some rarely used yard, at less than 2/3 the price; we more than double the density: good for transit, retail and street-life. Not only suburban lots, but Toronto’s detached ‘urban’ lots with 100′ depth, kill urbanity in this city, and make all services more expensive to supply.

7. The suburban 416 is nonetheless dense relative to a lot of American cities and many 905 neighbourhoods. A new east/west subway line would be well used, carrying people who arrive by surface routes in the same way as the Bloor Danforth line generates high ridership levels despite travelling through a lot of medium density areas.

   We need to build the medium-sized network we already have instead of starting from zero on a completely different network of supposed “light rapid transit”.

8. A.R., when demographics are taken into account I would wager that density between Toronto’s suburbs and the built up areas of the 905 are similar. Maybe even higher in the 905.

9. What was the density of the Yonge Line when it originally opened at York Mills in 1973, or at Sheppard in 1974?

   Pretty much all detached single family homes. I looked and couldn’t find and aerial photo’s from that era online – I can’t get to the archives to pull a photo from that era. Most of the skyscrapers and “downtown” North York were built after that time, same for the condo’s.

   It was the same for the Sheppard line, except there was more warehouse space then DSFH’s.

   Planners and the TTC need vision – density won’t arrive if there is no way for the people to get around quickly and easily. This means an alternative to the car. Subway or other form of true rapid transit — not buses, they aren’t as quick or glamorous for people converting from their car — needs to arrive first, then density will come (with appropriate zoning).

10. Glen: get your fur coats out of your eyes and read up on density.

    In the GTA, not just Toronto, there is a 5.09-million people in an area of 188,508 /hectare. That’s 27 people /hectare, which makes Toronto more dense than Vancouver (1.8 million pop., 23.5 people /ha), and on par with Copenhagen (1.4-million pop., 27 people /ha) and Stockholm (1.38-milliojn pop., 26 people /ha).

    The GTA is much more dense than you imagine.

11. MUSE,
    Re read what I said, The information you posted does not conflict at all. To paraphrase There is little difference in population density north of Lawrence to south of Major Mackenzie. What is going to really drive the need for utilization of of PT is employment location. Have a look at Page 8 here..http://www.toronto.ca/prosperity/pdf/case-transformative-change.pdf

12. Glen, in terms of population density, Mississauga in the 905 is said to be “built out” as a suburb (no more greenfields) and Wikipedia says its density is 2125 people per square kilometre. Etobicoke has the lowest density in the 416 at 2783 people per square km, which is still higher than Mississauga. The 905 has plenty of medium density areas, but one no longer sees the many high-rises of the 416 suburbs.

13. jamesmallon: I find it interesting that you compare Toronto to a US city rather than a European one for your argument against light rail, when many US cities are investing heavily in large LRT projects. Though these LRT lines have more in common with the RER and S-Bahn than they do with Transit City’s “express streetcar” lines.

14. A.R. is the airport included in the land area of Mississauga?