Could rail have substituted Toronto's Urban Highways?

[Admiral Beez]

Instead of the urban highways in Toronto, could these have been served by railways?

DVP - proposed 1954. Construction began 1958. Opened 1961-1966.
Gardiner Express - proposed 1947. Construction began 1956. Opened (entirely) 1966.
QEW Expansion (427 to Gardiner). Construction began 1957. Opened 1958.
Hwy 427. Construction began 1953 (widening original hwy 27). Opened 1956.

Based on the above, how could we use railways to replace these highways? We'd need to force this idea in the automobile/suburban loving early 1950s - did anyone in North American city planning have this level of insight?

We'd still need road access, so the focus is more on moving commuters and freight into/out of Toronto without cars and trucks.

My thinking here is inspired by these "what if" planning maps http://www.wired.com/2013/08/hyperreal-cartography-city-maps/

 

[TheTigerMaster]

In Toronto's current form? No. If the city were less sprawling, and more dense? Absolutely.

 

[robmausser]

The GO-ALRT program was an attempt at this, but it was cancelled

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2107.shtml

And the long and short of it is that it would have taken cars off the highway, and prevented new ones to be built, but not eliminated entirely.

One might argue that even the current GO system prevented the need for new highways to be built, and GO-RER will further that goal.

 

[mdrejhon]

Toronto actually already has an European-level of very few expressways.
Back in the 1950s, we planned for way, way more freeways than we do today.

But it is unfortunately accompanied by American-level lack of transit.

So Toronto got the worse of both worlds -- not enough transit and not enough freeways.

The way forward, though, involves major transit expansions, rather than new freeways.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In Toronto's current form? No. If the city were less sprawling, and more dense? Absolutely.

I mean making the change in the 1950s, before the highways were built. This would require a province-led planning strategy that I'm not sure would be politically feasible in that era. Certainly in Germany and elsewhere they used rail to connect cities, leaving rural or agricultural lands between the urban centres.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Toronto wouldn't be able to go freeway free, but it could have less of them. Ultimately intercity freeways are key for developed economies, and they would need to connect to the city somehow.

 

[crs1026]

In the period you describe (1950-65), cars were seen as the future and expressways were seen as a good thing. The original 401, 400, QEW were widely supported. The older highways 2, 5, 11 and 27 were a terrible and time consuming way to cross the city, or get to points further away. The 400 series highways were vital links across Ontario. The province could not have developed without them. Also, in this era the railways realised that they would do better by eliminating passenger business. CN tried to rekindle it, but failed.

Nobody really argued against 12-laning the 401 across Toronto and multi-laning 427 and QEW in the late sixties. People still believed that the solution to crowded highways was bigger ones. None of these projects ate up established suburbs, however. It was when these highways filled up, and the need for additional highways that would impact whole neighbourhoods was identified, that the opposition began.

GO Transit began as a deliberate avoidance of adding lanes to the DVP/Gardiner in the mid 1960's. The original construction was pretty minimal, however....no one was sure that the service would be popular. Similarly, subway was accepted as a solution for where there were simply too many people for car or street car to be effective, but few imagined that would go beyond the key main thoroughfares, and really only for rush hour. The successful extension of the Bloor Danforth subway to the suburbs in 1968 was instrumental in creating a desire for more widespread mass transit. We liked streetcars, but they were seen as old school and to be eliminated when they wore out.

I would argue that Toronto was lucky rather than farsighted. Toronto lagged behind other North American cities in building freeways because we were backwaterish and cautious - and cheap, not because we were smart. Happily, by the end of the sixties it was obvious that American cities which had driven freeways into their urban centers were failing. I would argue that the Vietnam War, and the race riots of the late sixties, were both important in inciting Torontonians to move away from an American vision and to look for a different model. And the 67-72 youth revolution was critical in making people want to challenge leaders rather than go along with things. That was the beginning of 'activism' on urban matters including environment, energy, and urban form. It was also the start of the sense that Toronto was 'cool' and could be a trendsetter.

Short answer - we could never have convinced people to eschew the automobile before about the 1970's. Frankly, even us transit geeks took our cars lots more places than we do today.

- Paul

 

[wild goose chase]

Toronto lagged behind other North American cities in building freeways because we were backwaterish and cautious - and cheap, not because we were smart. Happily, by the end of the sixties it was obvious that American cities which had driven freeways into their urban centers were failing. I would argue that the Vietnam War, and the race riots of the late sixties, were both important in inciting Torontonians to move away from an American vision and to look for a different model. And the 67-72 youth revolution was critical in making people want to challenge leaders rather than go along with things. That was the beginning of 'activism' on urban matters including environment, energy, and urban form.

Short answer - we could never have convinced people to eschew the automobile before about the 1970's. Frankly, even us transit geeks took our cars lots more places than we do today.

Given the fact that Toronto is a North American city so close to the US in outlook and one that looked to the US for inspiration to begin with, what are the odds that it would have looked towards non-American inspiration or design (be it European or otherwise) so early on and taken a different path urban planning-wise? That would be a cool thought no doubt and an interesting alternative but would probably require something to be very different about Canada and the Canadian mindset (perhaps a hypothetical history where Canadian cities distinguished themselves from American culture much more early rather than followed in its footsteps).

 

[wild goose chase]

Maybe a possible history where Toronto remained closer to British culture, mindset and outlook and was keen on looking not to the US and its "car culture" for inspiration but to the UK and its "train culture" much more could have allowed such a plan to have taken hold. But maybe not, considering that passenger trains weren't a big part of Canadian history, at least compared to freight trains which obviously played much more of a role in our (resource-rich but not densely populated) country's history.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Yeah, I don't see how the railways could have prevented the freeways that were built, especially in an environment where the railroads were pulling out of passenger rail service.

If I were to provide an ideal it would be that development would have been centred around existing rail stations, a mix of the modern places to grow act, and the centres plan. 2 or 3 (in addition to Union) passenger stations would have remained in the then Metro region and provided an anchor for denser nodes. While secondary cities in the GTA would have had daily passenger rail service. However we are talking today with knowledge gained today, who would have thought in 1960 that Kitchener, Waterloo, and even Hamilton would become bedroom communities for downtown Toronto

crs summed it up best I think.

 

[crs1026]

Two other anecdotes that point to the early 70's as the pivotal point -

Before about 1970, commuter service to Markham consisted of a one-car train that only ran outbound in the evening - there was no inbound morning train (although it was possible to catch a CP train into the city in the morning - on a different line).

In the late 60's, there was no commuter service to Barrie. To make a point, a private citizen chartered his own train and sold tickets for a one-day commuter 'demonstration'. The train sold out. CN continued to refuse to run a train on that line.

In both cases, in the early 1970's the Canadian Transport Commission, which until then had been quite willing to help the railways cut unprofitable passenger trains, ordered CN to institute proper morning-afternoon service. These were seen as remarkable changes in policy. In 1981, the Pepin cuts threatened these trains, leading to their transfer to GO Transit.

And, in 1974, CN wanted to cut its Guelph commuter train. GO took that over. That was the first new line beyond the Lakeshore service

- Paul

 

[salsa]

Two other anecdotes that point to the early 70's as the pivotal point -

Before about 1970, commuter service to Markham consisted of a one-car train that only ran outbound in the evening - there was no inbound morning train (although it was possible to catch a CP train into the city in the morning - on a different line).

In the late 60's, there was no commuter service to Barrie. To make a point, a private citizen chartered his own train and sold tickets for a one-day commuter 'demonstration'. The train sold out. CN continued to refuse to run a train on that line.

In both cases, in the early 1970's the Canadian Transport Commission, which until then had been quite willing to help the railways cut unprofitable passenger trains, ordered CN to institute proper morning-afternoon service. These were seen as remarkable changes in policy. In 1981, the Pepin cuts threatened these trains, leading to their transfer to GO Transit.

And, in 1974, CN wanted to cut its Guelph commuter train. GO took that over. That was the first new line beyond the Lakeshore service.

Very humble beginnings for GO Transit. We've come a long way from those days, and the future will be even better with RER.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As a 44 year old, I just hope I live long enough to see it...

 

[innsertnamehere]

Ontario shying away from freeways is a fallacy. It has the largest freeways on the planet. The 401 is both the widest (18 lanes) and busiest globally. The fact that the bypass of the bypass (407) has 12 lanes is nuts by any global standard, but is treated as normal for Toronto.
MTO is a global leader of highway design, and Ontario is up there with Texas as the "highway capitals" of North America if such a title were to exist.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Ontario shying away from freeways is a fallacy. It has the largest freeways on the planet. The 401 is both the widest (18 lanes) and busiest globally. The fact that the bypass of the bypass (407) has 12 lanes is nuts by any global standard, but is treated as normal for Toronto.
MTO is a global leader of highway design, and Ontario is up there with Texas as the "highway capitals" of North America if such a title were to exist.

I get that the 401 is wide, but how does the length of highways in Toronto compare to elsewhere?