News   Jan 17, 2025
 2.1K     1 
News   Jan 17, 2025
 1.8K     1 
News   Jan 17, 2025
 720     0 

Metrolinx may exacerbate sprawl: TD

Glen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
0
Another good report from TD economics! There are some good ideas within about taxes etc. The report also has a warning about a potential negative effect of the Metrolinx plan..........



A number of policies encourage urban
sprawl, such as property tax structures that give incentives
to move jobs out of the city core. By only having
control over public transit, Metrolinx’s plan would inevitably
exacerbate sprawl and the negative externalities
it inflicts by making it more convenient for people
and companies to locate further away from Toronto.

http://www.td.com/economics/special/db0908_ont.pdf
 
Will Metrolinx's plan encourage more development in the outer municipalities of the GTA? Yes. Will it encourage denser and more transit friendly development in those outer municipalities? Absolutely. We're not going to stop Brampton or Burlington from growing, so the right thing to do is provide good quality transit that will encourage people to live and work at higher densities and without their cars.
 
U2 has the right take on this. Yes, improving transit will make it easier to get out to the burbs, but it will allow them to become more urban too. The population is going to keep going up, and we need to foster the right types of places - sustainable ones - to live in.

42
 
exercising muscles unevenly

-haven't read the TD report, but the question could become: does the Metrolinx plan focus a disproportionate amount of cash at densifying 905, (and outer 416?) while mostly ignoring the potential of inner 416?

-if 416 is not being ignored, then would transit-friendly development in 905 necessarily threaten jobs...?
 
Will Metrolinx's plan encourage more development in the outer municipalities of the GTA? Yes. Will it encourage denser and more transit friendly development in those outer municipalities? Absolutely. We're not going to stop Brampton or Burlington from growing, so the right thing to do is provide good quality transit that will encourage people to live and work at higher densities and without their cars.

I spend a week in Cincinnati and when I come back we see eye to eye. Was I in a time warp? :D

But seriously. We can't stop the suburbs. What we can do is strive to build better suburbs like North Oakville and Markham City Centre are supposed to be, and we have to find ways to effectively serve the ones we have built / screwed up.
 
There is an argument to be made that providing rapid transit for the burbs will only encourage sprawl. Why live in the 416 when you can live in the 905, drive to the GO station and make it downtown in less time that most 416 residents who usually take at least a bus and a slow subway train to get close to their destination. That access to GO is what facilitates sprawl.
 
My definition of sprawl is low density, car oriented housing on greenfields.

Bring transit into the mix and making the developments walkable and transit oriented changes it from bring sprawl to just being housing. Besides. We're not going to be able to accommodate all the projected population growth in the 416. We're going to have to build in the 905. That means building it better and putting the transit links so people don't have to use their cars.

Sometimes it's as simple as putting in a bus route to connect to the GO station to change behaviours.
 
^^ Looking at maps like that makes me want to kill somebody.

//procrastinating 'cus I have a presentation on urban sprawl to work on
 
There is an argument to be made that providing rapid transit for the burbs will only encourage sprawl. Why live in the 416 when you can live in the 905, drive to the GO station and make it downtown in less time that most 416 residents who usually take at least a bus and a slow subway train to get close to their destination. That access to GO is what facilitates sprawl.

While it is true that many can get downtown faster on GO than those who live in Toronto can on TTC, to say that GO facilitates sprawl is ludicrous. Sprawl existed way before the GO system did. Not to mention the fact that GO takes thousands of cars off the road every day. You might argue that the only reason people are living "out there" is because of GO-- fat chance. Give me a person whose primary reason for moving to the suburbs was access to GO and I will be amazed.

The fact is, we are only beginning to realize the full potential of the GO system. The RTP calls for frequent service (every 15 mins) on some routes along with "mobility hubs" that replace the existing sea of parking lots surrounding most GO stations with dense, mixed use, transit-oriented development. I agree with others who have said that the Metrolinx plan will most likely make Toronto's "satellite towns" more dense while strengthening the economy of the entire region (including downtown).

P.S. I wish the Pickering Airport would just die already.
 
While it is true that many can get downtown faster on GO than those who live in Toronto can on TTC, to say that GO facilitates sprawl is ludicrous. Sprawl existed way before the GO system did. Not to mention the fact that GO takes thousands of cars off the road every day. You might argue that the only reason people are living "out there" is because of GO-- fat chance. Give me a person whose primary reason for moving to the suburbs was access to GO and I will be amazed.
As someone who moved from Long Branch to Ajax, I can definitely say that without GO, I would never have made that move. It wasn't the reason I moved (had a lot to do with affordable housing plus the appeal of the specific lakefront neighbourhood I live in) but it certainly enabled my move. Despite living "out in the boonies", I can typically home from work at Yonge/Sheppard in an hour, and that includes picking up the little ones from daycare. Without GO as an option, my wife and I would not have made that choice.

But that's a personal case, not a general trend. Would we have had the same degree of suburban development had GO never been created? Absolutely - but we would have had things like the Scarborough Expressway built to accommodate commuters instead. Toronto would look more like Houston.

Reducing sprawl is a growth management problem, not a transportation problem. BTW, I notice that there is considerable discussion in the Durham Growth Plan draft released a few weeks ago (and the source of the map just above) of densifying GO station areas to form mobility hubs and "transit villages".
 
Very interesting. It looks like they're pushing ahead with the plan to shift the GO service onto the CP line east of Oshawa. It's a good move, because it is much closer to the downtowns, including Oshawa's.
 
As the GTHA becomes more dense and more urban there really isn't all that much that differentiates neighbourhoods within the 416 from those without. In other words, for many of us our lives are lived within our local neighbourhoods/localities whether it is in the Beaches or Oakville, Kensington Market or Locke Street. As with those in 416 communities we may venture out now and again downtown for one reason or another, or we may venture out on a more regular basis to work but many of us out here in the wilds of the 905 are living a localized urban lifestyle, belive it or not. Improvements to mass transportation will help the flow in and out of the city, as well as in and between the various communities that make up the region as a whole, which can only be good.
 
As someone who moved from Long Branch to Ajax, I can definitely say that without GO, I would never have made that move. It wasn't the reason I moved (had a lot to do with affordable housing plus the appeal of the specific lakefront neighbourhood I live in) but it certainly enabled my move. Despite living "out in the boonies", I can typically home from work at Yonge/Sheppard in an hour, and that includes picking up the little ones from daycare. Without GO as an option, my wife and I would not have made that choice.

What would Downtown Toronto be like without GO? What would Downtown be like if all those transit riders drive and park downtown instead. I do think that GO, with its insane focus on park-and-ride lots, reinforces the low density of the suburbs. But I also think that it has curbs sprawl at the same time.

Mobility is the key to sprawl. But transit riders are not mobile, at least compared to motorists. Transit riders can only walk a certain distance to and from transit stations and stops. Even GO riders who park-and-ride in the suburbs can only walk a certain distance from Union station. This is why all transit, even GO, has the effect of increasing density.
 
I do think that GO, with its insane focus on park-and-ride lots, reinforces the low density of the suburbs.

The problem is the park-and-ride lots at both GO and the outlaying subway stations. Creating vast parking lots contribute to suburban sprawl, and not just at the stations. They need to be replaced by frequent and convenient local transit, that operates during the same hours, and without having the parking lots being barriers to pedestrians or transit.
 

Back
Top