Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

[Rainforest]

Induced demand is a thing. Whatever road space was freed up by the building of this station, will quickly be replaced by cars taking new trips. The result is that our transportation system as a whole (roads, trains, etc..) are now moving more people, but with the downside of encouraging even more people to build and locate in these transit-hostile, ultra-low density, sprawling suburban communities. This is not sustainable transportation development, and in the long run it will bite us in the ass.

This is the exact same catch-22 faced with GO RER. Yes, RER will "remove" million of trips from the roads. But those millions of trips will be immediately replaced by other people taking more car trips, leaving us with no less road congestion. And because RER is making it possible for more people to travel to/from these low-density suburbs, there will be more people wanting to locate in those suburbs, and thus increasing pressure to develop in these suburbs. But these suburbs cannot be effectively served by transit, so in the long run we're building a region that's even less transit accessible. You see the catch-22 we're in? Building car-depdant transit only increases car-dependance across the region.

Fun fact: Over the coming decades, transit modal share in the GTHA is expected to decrease, despite hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in infrastructure.

Isn't that a consequence of growing total population though? Without investment in public transit, the transit modal share would be even lower ..

 

[aquateam]

Even Vancouver allows limited greenfield, although extremely limited. Not sure I am entirely interested in going the Vancouver route anyway. The city has some of the highest average commute times on the continent.

Their average commute is 4 minutes shorter than the average commute in Toronto.

In principle, denser development and less separation of uses would decrease the distance between destinations, decreasing commuting distance and commuting times.

The fundamental change needs to come from community design, not the current high level approach. We have governments mandating ridiculous densities but still only being willing to provide 1.5m sidewalks on one side of a residential street in a 20m wide residential ROW, and a 10m wide road.

I wouldn't say there is anything ridiculous about the mandated densities. If anything, it's more "business as usual", keeping the existing rate of sprawl as same unambitious low-density targets, but with no method of enforcement (completely toothless.) I know Hamilton is ignoring their density targets because they'd rather have greenfield development.

"Community design" can also be a mistake. Homeowners have every incentive to opposite new housing near them and no stake in the liveability of the region as a whole. That's why you get people near the new $6 billion Eglinton LRT complaining about "density creep" of townhomes and duplexes and people at Parliament and Gerard complaining about "mountainous" 6 storey buildings. Homeowners already live in a neighbourhood and have spent huge amounts of money on their home, they are perfectly okay with housing prices rising and newcomers being priced out to farmers fields in Markham.

One of the concerns I have with the minimum density target is that it'll result in small pockets of very high density around transit stations, surrounded by huge swaths of low-density. But I don't know enough about the planning regulations to say for certain if it will result in that.

Note, this is what they are doing differently in Vancouver:

 

[Rainforest]

The GO Transit parking lots aren’t the only cause of this problem, but they play a big role. Simply saying “no” to these parking lots would reduce incentives for people to build new subdivisions in the outer suburbs, forcing these people to relocate to denser and more transit friendly areas of the region.

That kind of assumes that everyone who settles in GTA has no other choice at all. If they can't settle in the suburbs because the car commute gets too long and the parking lots are insufficient, then they will have to live in small condos closer to work.

In reality, some of the most employable professionals, who want more living space, might leave the area altogether. Perhaps just a few % of the total population, but a more sizeable hit to the pool of those who generate wealth.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

That kind of assumes that everyone who settles in GTA has no other choice at all. If they can't settle in the suburbs because the car commute gets too long and the parking lots are insufficient, then they will have to live in small condos closer to work.

In reality, some of the most employable professionals, who want more living space, might leave the area altogether. Perhaps just a few % of the total population, but a more sizeable hit to the pool of those who generate wealth.

This assumes that there isn't a gradient between "small condos" and suburban subdivisions. In the GTHA we experience this "missing middle" problem, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed with a change in planning policies. People can live in dense communities, while still being able to live in detached housing.

We're not used to building this kind of housing in the GTHA though, so it would take a cultural shift. That doesn't mean it's impossible though. Settling for the status quo, which we know doesn't work, is just lazy.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The other problem is it is hard to get mixed use in new developments. Don't see convenience stores that are "convenient" (IE. next to transit stops).

 

[Streety McCarface]

Why not just charge a dollar for parking at GO lots. Maybe it will incentivize people to use local transit if it's available.

The other problem is it is hard to get mixed use in new developments. Don't see convenience stores that are "convenient" (IE. next to transit stops).

Sheppard Avenue has this fault especially.

 

[KevinT]

Why not just charge a dollar for parking at GO lots. Maybe it will incentivize people to use local transit if it's available.

I wonder what would happen if parking cost the same as two transit fares?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Used to see bank branches or hardware stores next to almost every other transit stop. Nowadays, they closed them down for "efficiency" purposes. Good reason for the two-hour transfer.

 

[BMO]

Their average commute is 4 minutes shorter than the average commute in Toronto.

In principle, denser development and less separation of uses would decrease the distance between destinations, decreasing commuting distance and commuting times.



I wouldn't say there is anything ridiculous about the mandated densities. If anything, it's more "business as usual", keeping the existing rate of sprawl as same unambitious low-density targets, but with no method of enforcement (completely toothless.) I know Hamilton is ignoring their density targets because they'd rather have greenfield development.

"Community design" can also be a mistake. Homeowners have every incentive to opposite new housing near them and no stake in the liveability of the region as a whole. That's why you get people near the new $6 billion Eglinton LRT complaining about "density creep" of townhomes and duplexes and people at Parliament and Gerard complaining about "mountainous" 6 storey buildings. Homeowners already live in a neighbourhood and have spent huge amounts of money on their home, they are perfectly okay with housing prices rising and newcomers being priced out to farmers fields in Markham.



Note, this is what they are doing differently in Vancouver:

It kind of helps when you're city is physically enclosed by the sea on one side and mountains on the other making it cost prohibitive to build anywhere but the already built up valley. I think this is a case of nature driving policy rather than some user progressive push by Vancouver . This is also reflected in housing prices. There just isn't enough supply of low rise housing hence the crazy prices.

 

[micheal_can]

Just imagine that they closed all parking lots at all transit stations. This includes subways and GO train stations.

Local bus service would improve, and ridership would skyrocket. And so would higher order transit construction.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Just imagine that they closed all parking lots at all transit stations. This includes subways and GO train stations.

Local bus service would improve, and ridership would skyrocket. And so would higher order transit construction.

Or...no one would use transit and they'd all drive everywhere.

 

[micheal_can]

Or...no one would use transit and they'd all drive everywhere.

And traffic would be atrocious.

 

[W. K. Lis]

They'll have to increase the price of parking, everywhere. That includes putting to an end to free parking, especially in the suburbs.

 

[Streety McCarface]

And traffic would be atrocious.

Unfortunately. People are too attached to their vehicles.

 

[Disparishun]

I wonder what would happen if parking cost the same as two transit fares?

Make GO trains free, set GO parking prices at the cost of a round trip to Union Station.

Put a cafe and a gym at every GO train station.

Create a default rule allowing up to six storeys within a kilometre of every train, subway, and dedicated-ROW transit station.