The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by osmo

And Bloor Street sits... low density... as does the Danforth...

It might be mostly low-rise, and it's never spurred much development, but densities along Bloor are near or above 10,000 people/sqkm for most of it's length. Considering its ridership, it's dense enough to support a subway line.

But this is a case of building a line through an established urban neighbourhood that will have sufficient ridership from Day 1 rather than building one through the suburbs with the intention of creating that ridership. Different concepts.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It might be mostly low-rise, and it's never spurred much development, but densities along Bloor are near or above 10,000 people/sqkm for most of it's length. Considering its ridership, it's dense enough to support a subway line.

But this is a case of building a line through an established urban neighbourhood that will have sufficient ridership from Day 1 rather than building one through the suburbs with the intention of creating that ridership. Different concepts.

Yep. Many early 20th century low rise neighbourhoods in Southern Ontario can have very high densities even though they don't look that much fuller than newer suburban subdivisions, because:
1) Many buildings look like SFH homes from the outside but are actually multi-unit housing
2) The lots are smaller, in a subtle way, with shallower lots allowing for the next block to be closer, and often slightly narrower too to fit more buildings per block. (This trick has actually returned in newer (<10 years ago) suburban development.)
3) Institutional spaces like schools tend to have much smaller footprints

[Aylmer]

4) There aren't ten parking spaces for each resident in the surrounding area.

[SFUVancouver]

5) There is an established transit culture in these neighbourhoods, so people who move to them and do business within them have an expectation that the TTC will play a role in their day-to-day lives and not expect to drive and park everywhere for everything.

[Trans Canada]

^ but if these neighbourhoods already have a transit culture, is boosting them from Transit Service A to Transit Service B a better use of resources than taking suburbs from closer to Zero Transit to Transit Service B?

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Trans Canada

^ but if these neighbourhoods already have a transit culture, is boosting them from Transit Service A to Transit Service B a better use of resources than taking suburbs from closer to Zero Transit to Transit Service B?

If the transit is too crowded on the return trip then the suburb types won't be using it. You need to keep congestion down so that people going out to the suburbs can actually get on a train.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It might be mostly low-rise, and it's never spurred much development, but densities along Bloor are near or above 10,000 people/sqkm for most of it's length. Considering its ridership, it's dense enough to support a subway line.

But this is a case of building a line through an established urban neighbourhood that will have sufficient ridership from Day 1 rather than building one through the suburbs with the intention of creating that ridership. Different concepts.

Exactly. An LRT will do a better job of creating economic growth due to increased number of stops. One only need look at the Bloor line to see even after almost 50 years you don't see the type of urbanization along it's route like some Subways everywhere promoters would like to have you think. Suburban Torontonians have been lied to by the people they elect that LRT is some sort of second class service when it's not. But hey if they'd rather have 4 stops of 7 or 8 and spend more time in buses getting to them let them have their unwarranted subways. Just increase their property taxes and let them pay for it so things like the DRL aren't shelved.

Posted on the star.com
Thank god this guy is no longer mayor, hopefully Tory doesn't pander to the voters and builds the DRL next. A subway where it is needed.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

As funny as it sounds, the mafia is pretty strong in Southern Ontario. Not sure how involved they are in infrastructure but they are involved in a whole host of illegal activities such as drug dealing, prostitution and other related activities. Both the Italian and Jewish mafias are the ones I'm somewhat familiar with, though they are not the only ones involved in illegal activities, far from it.

Jewish mafia? I've literally never heard of that. Maybe a mobster here and there who happens to be Jewish?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Exactly. An LRT will do a better job of creating economic growth due to increased number of stops. One only need look at the Bloor line to see even after almost 50 years you don't see the type of urbanization along it's route like some Subways everywhere promoters would like to have you think. Suburban Torontonians have been lied to by the people they elect that LRT is some sort of second class service when it's not. But hey if they'd rather have 4 stops of 7 or 8 and spend more time in buses getting to them let them have their unwarranted subways. Just increase their property taxes and let them pay for it so things like the DRL aren't shelved.

Bloor line has some of the shortest station distances you will find. There's been a lot of development over the 50 years too. Of course , urbanization in the form of high rise towers didn't materialize since the zoning doesn't allow for them along most of the route.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Jewish mafia? I've literally never heard of that. Maybe a mobster here and there who happens to be Jewish?

The Jewish mob is positively massive.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Jewish mafia? I've literally never heard of that. Maybe a mobster here and there who happens to be Jewish?

Yeah, the oldest 'ethnic' organized gang syndicate in these parts, they're on their last legs but own some profitable establishments. Clearly the smaller of the two but they're both involved in overlapping activities and are very much in competition.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Exactly. An LRT will do a better job of creating economic growth due to increased number of stops. One only need look at the Bloor line to see even after almost 50 years you don't see the type of urbanization along it's route like some Subways everywhere promoters would like to have you think.

No offense, but is critical thinking gone? And is any respect for our built heritage still left?
Sorry TorontoDrew. But it is not the endless condo neighborhoods that made Toronto the planning model of North America. It is the preservation of neighborhoods like The Danforth, with great transit service, that Toronto gives Toronto it's character. They are the neighborhoods Jane Jacobs so loved, and even lived in. The idea that people would advocate the demolition of these neighborhoods is scary and sad.
What is next, do you want to see Queen East in The Beach replaced with 40 story towers?

1: Who wants to see Danforth Ave or Bloor Street West demolished for modern high-rises? I know I don't. Neighborhoods along Danforth and Bloor West are some of Toronto's most cherished neighborhoods, with vibrant street life and great housing mixes which includes family housing. They are the example of what people love about inner city Toronto. And they offer an alternative to the high-rise condo, that yes, some people don't want to live in. They show how a city can have functioning, vibrant, neighborhoods, and still have houses, and multi-family housing mixed together.

2: Just because you put a subway somewhere, does not mean you have to demolish what is there and build even more density. Danforth Ave and Bloor West could not handle much more development, as the subway is already overcrowded.

3: The subway did create a lot of development. Just look at the Yonge Line, and North York Centre, Yonge-Eglinton, Yonge-St. Clair, Davisville. Higher density development was built at strategic areas along Yonge.
Up until 1990, something like 90% of metropolitan office space was built along the subway lines. We got development, and more is coming.

So lets get off this kick that the subway did not spur development, because it did. And it is happening now around many of the suburban stations like Kipling, Islington, and Warden. And you know what? It is not perfect, but I like some of the development around Warden Station, because it is showing that we don't need 40 story condo towers at every stop. The Warden Station development has a nice mix of low rise condos, and a mix of townhouses and single family houses, all built in a dense style.
Also, a study just came out that we have to stop looking at transit projects as development projects. Transit projects are first and foremost, projects to move people. You do not build a transit project as a development project.
By all means, yes, transit and development plans can go together and support each other. But the idea that building a streetcar on Sheppard Ave, so that you can turn it into Queen Street, is shortsighted and a waste of billions of dollars.

I still cannot believe someone wants to demolish Danforth Ave, just to put up more crappy condos which will fall apart in 10 years. Instead of wanting to demolish it, how about you go actually hang out on Danforth Ave and enjoy the great street life, restaurants, and shops. One of the best places to stroll on a summer evening. And easy to get to by subway.

In closing to this pose, I guess you would demolish 90% of London, England as well? Since most of the development in London along the Tube is no different than what you see on Danforth Ave. Save for more row houses.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the zoing wasn't so restrictive, higher density wouldn't need to be point towers to be profitable (since the regulatory burden of rezoing/risk of rejection is spread over more units).

Protecting neighbourhoods that are the closest to transit so that only the wealthy can live there makes inequality worse.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the zoing wasn't so restrictive, higher density wouldn't need to be point towers to be profitable (since the regulatory burden of rezoing/risk of rejection is spread over more units).

Protecting neighbourhoods that are the closest to transit so that only the wealthy can live there makes inequality worse.

And you think demolishing neighborhoods to build $500,000 condos helps reduce inequality? Those neighborhoods were not always as expensive as they are now, and the whole affordability issue stems from other forces than not demolishing The Danforth. The entire region is unaffordable whether you are on a subway line or not.

[caltrane74]

https://m.facebook.com/UnionPearsonExpress

Hours up for the Union Pearson Express - From the UPX Facebook Page

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The Jewish mob is positively massive.

"Positively massive"? The internet begs to differ. A google search of 'Jewish Mafia Toronto' yielded only a few stormfront-type anti-semitic pages. Pretty sure if it were positively massive, Google would have something to back that up.

^Anyway, really looking forward to the opening of the UPX (even though it will cost $27.50, at least at first ) I hope Montreal solidifies its airport train plans soon. Taking (waiting for) the 747 bus late at night is dreadful.

[nname]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

https://m.facebook.com/UnionPearsonExpress

Hours up for the Union Pearson Express - From the UPX Facebook Page

First train 5:30am seems kind of late. Vancouver's first train run at 4:48am, and is already quite late for those who wish to catch the 6am transborder flights.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

^Anyway, really looking forward to the opening of the UPX (even though it will cost $27.50, at least at first ) I hope Montreal solidifies its airport train plans soon. Taking (waiting for) the 747 bus late at night is dreadful.

It will happen. We just have to be patient.

The Caisse said 2020. So my guess would be a construction start in 2017.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

And you think demolishing neighborhoods to build $500,000 condos helps reduce inequality? Those neighborhoods were not always as expensive as they are now, and the whole affordability issue stems from other forces than not demolishing The Danforth. The entire region is unaffordable whether you are on a subway line or not.

I guess adding more supply just won't help keep prices down. If new units come in, older ones become cheaper.

It is like people think the rules of supply and demand don't apply to traffic and real estate.

Add enough supply and prices will stabilize and then start to come down. Either add more units around existing transit, or add more transit around under utilized units.

Haven't you seen the two Toronto's map? Close higher order transit access is a pretty big factor in the social success of a neighbourhood.

What else pray tell would help make the area more affordable?

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I guess adding more supply just won't help keep prices down. If new units come in, older ones become cheaper.

It is like people think the rules of supply and demand don't apply to traffic and real estate.

Add enough supply and prices will stabilize and then start to come down. Either add more units around existing transit, or add more transit around under utilized units.

Haven't you seen the two Toronto's map? Close higher order transit access is a pretty big factor in the social success of a neighbourhood.

What else pray tell would help make the area more affordable?

So I guess London, Milan, and Toronto, plus every other city, should just demolish all their old neighborhoods? Why keep any history? Why keep any neighborhoods that function great?

The issue is we need to build more transit to more areas. Not demolish areas on transit.

Also, people locate where they do for many factors. It is not weird at all, that people who have high income downtown jobs, tend to locate on subway lines, so they can get downtown quickly. Demolishing neighborhoods to put up condos, is not going to help the family in Malvern who commutes to a suburban industrial park. Because, that family is going to need a house. And two, they are not commuting downtown. So living on The Danforth would do nothing to them, if they have to commute an hour by car or transit out to Vaughan.