Planned Sprawl in the GTA

[innsertnamehere]

I would be surprised if Brampton actually went through with cancelling the widening as well.

The city has invested a ton into its bus network which has paid off but ultimately is still extremely car reliant. It's built form means that is likely not to change in any significant way either. Bus ridership can continue to grow, but 90% of Brampton households are going to continue to have 2+ cars in their driveway.

Agreed that it needs to work on its hard infrastructure. The bus service it provides is some of the best in the 905, but the second a passenger steps off the bus they are thrown onto some of the most unnecessarily wide and intimidating roads in the GTA.

 

[Northern Light]

...... The bus service it provides is some of the best in the 905, but the second a passenger steps off the bus they are thrown onto some of the most unnecessarily wide and intimidating roads in the GTA.

The answer to which is...............

I would be surprised if Brampton actually went through with cancelling the widening as well.

Widening another road

and

The city has invested a ton into its bus network which has paid off but ultimately is still extremely car reliant. It's built form means that is likely not to change in any significant way either. Bus ridership can continue to grow, but 90% of Brampton households are going to continue to have 2+ cars in their driveway.

Giving up on making things any better.

Sigh...........the cyclist who is the biggest proponent of new/expanded highways in the GTA strikes again.

I really do wish to be respectful; but I find your take on things to be nearing BurlOak cringe-worthy.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The answer to which is...............



Widening another road

and



Giving up on making things any better.

Sigh...........the cyclist who is the biggest proponent of new/expanded highways in the GTA strikes again.

I really do wish to be respectful; but I find your take on things to be nearing BurlOak cringe-worthy.

I’m not saying it’s the answer - just the political reality of Brampton.

Even then, my comment was less on the capacity of Brampton’s roads and more so how they design them. There are much better ways of laying out cities that can support high volumes of cars without making a pedestrian feel like they are walking on mars. Eliminating right turn merges, making lane widths narrower, build high quality MUPs along the road with proper safe crossings, and providing more active uses and pedestrian crossings along the length of the road can make it infinitely more pedestrian friendly without majorly screwing with vehicle capacity.

think of streets like Plains Road in Aldershot - very car oriented still with tons of auto capacity but it also doesn’t feel like pedestrians are an afterthought.

Relax on the cringe comments - just because I don’t believe all road infra is the devil doesn’t make it cringe-worthy.

 

[Northern Light]

.....
Relax on the cringe comments - just because I don’t believe all road infra is the devil doesn’t make it cringe-worthy.

Here's the problem w/the comment above.

I own a car; I drive it regularly, almost assuredly more than you drive a car.

I have a job that requires me to visit a variety of locations around the GTA, usually by car.

I love camping, and try to go every year, at least once, and needless to say make good use of our highways.

Your notion that I'm somehow anti-car or anti-highway, is, to put it nicely, misplaced.

I'm not opposed to spending money on roads, nor even on the creation of new roads insofar as the cost-benefit analysis is favourable; it assists w/intensification, it demonstrably aids public transit and it doesn't aid in creating more urban sprawl.

But what concerns me w/your posts, is your unabashed love of new highways that will create sprawl through countryside areas; as every similar project has before (this time will not be any different); and your love of widening roads.

I see these as completely and utterly in contradiction to an ethos of intensification; and as a way to squander money that could be spent on public transit or useful improvements to the urban grid.

Be that as it may, I will let the issue rest as I have no desire to troll you or anyone else. I just find your posts exasperating; and inconsistent w/your stated goals/beliefs.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Here's the problem w/the comment above.

I own a car; I drive it regularly, almost assuredly more than you drive a car.

I have a job that requires me to visit a variety of locations around the GTA, usually by car.

I love camping, and try to go every year, at least once, and needless to say make good use of our highways.

Your notion that I'm somehow anti-car or anti-highway, is, to put it nicely, misplaced.

I'm not opposed to spending money on roads, nor even on the creation of new roads insofar as the cost-benefit analysis is favourable; it assists w/intensification, it demonstrably aids public transit and it doesn't aid in creating more urban sprawl.

But what concerns me w/your posts, is your unabashed love of new highways that will create sprawl through countryside areas; as every similar project has before (this time will not be any different); and your love of widening roads.

I see these as completely and utterly in contradiction to an ethos of intensification; and as a way to squander money that could be spent on public transit or useful improvements to the urban grid.

Be that as it may, I will let the issue rest as I have no desire to troll you or anyone else. I just find your posts exasperating; and inconsistent w/your stated goals/beliefs.

Who ever said I thought you were?

My "love" of widening roads comes from a pragmatic approach to infrastructure and a realization that we can't add 3 million people to the GTA in the next 30 years with only piecemeal "fixing the grid" type road works, no matter how much we push transit modal share. Roads like GTA West are needed to service that growing population. Period.

Cars are a huge reality of modern life. Even the most transit and walking friendly parts of Europe have auto modal shares near 80%. They aren't going away, people aren't going to stop driving. We can allow people to get around efficiently, or let everyone drown in traffic. A few "gap fills" of the arterial road network aren't going to get us there with 3 million more people coming to the GTA in the next 30 years.

Perhaps I get a bit ahead of myself on these things sometimes as too often I see on this board and on twitter a sort of "all road works are bad because induced demand".

I'm more of a fan of the dutch form of urban development - dense urban form with lots of transportation options, but they don't ignore cars either. Options are key - allow people to make the choice that works for them.. The Netherlands has an extremely robust regional and local transit network, it's famous levels of cycling infrastructure, but it also has tons of 12 lane freeways and efficient road connections. Options. And just because it's roads are wide and relatively traffic free doesn't mean it commands a US-style 98% auto modal share. Almere is a model to me of modern suburban planning and what we should be aiming for in terms of suburban development.

I look at places like Brampton and shake my head because it's so auto focused. The whole place is not designed for options, but rather for the car. And I think that's a shame. Brampton's transit wing is doing a superb job working with that, but it's still a reality. Something needs to change in how we design our cities, and places like VMC make me hopeful that perhaps it finally is, but Brampton isn't the way forward. North Oakville is perhaps the first modern 905 suburb that looks like it could come close to actually providing *options* for new greenfield suburban development - it's a shame it doesn't have a GO station like Mount Pleasant (such a squandered opportunity there).

I'm a one car household BTW - and I'm not the one who drives to work every day. Not like I have a huge bias here. Most of my personal driving is long range - to Michigan to visit friends, to the suburbs to see my parents, cottage country, every year or two to New Brunswick to visit family, etc.

 

[Northern Light]

Cars are a huge reality of modern life. Even the most transit and walking friendly parts of Europe have auto modal shares near 80%

Uhhh. Now listen, I don't expect Brampton, or Toronto to ever be Amsterdam.....but

The above is from here: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ma-2012-City-of-Amsterdam-2014_fig3_317421392

Notable here, is that since 2014, the 'active transportation number (walking and cycling) has hit 61%.

Also, look at that dramatic shift over 30 years, dropping the modal share of auto trips from 39% to 21%

So now let's look at Paris, France:

From here: https://ecf.com/system/files/ChristopheNajdovski_ParisCyclingPolicies.pdf

My understanding is that again the car numbers have continued to drop since 2010 with a double-digit reduction in car traffic.

But that's still only 2 cities, so how about we throw in Vienna!

From this site: https://pastaproject.eu/fileadmin/e...cations/documents/AM_Factsheet_Vienna_WP2.pdf

Not one of the above cities shows modal shares for cars exceeding 27%. in contemporary times, all show shifts of 10 points or greater towards walking/cycling/transit in the last 20 years.

A 10 point shift in Brampton/Vaughan would do far more that the GTA West Corridor to alleviate suburban congestion.

They aren't going away, people aren't going to stop driving. We can allow people to get around efficiently, or let everyone drown in traffic. A few "gap fills" of the arterial road network aren't going to get us there with 3 million more people coming to the GTA in the next 30 years.

Here, we definitely disagree; I expect and Metrolinx modelling, which I don't find overly ambitious, seems to agree that we can in fact cap the number of vehicles on the roads of the GTA at or near current levels even while the population grows substantially over the next 20+ years.

In order to achieve that, however, transit and active transportation need to be the overwhelming focus of improvements with very selective investments in new/widened roads.

Worth saying, Toronto's inner suburbs, when looking at trips that originate there and are not headed downtown, has already dropped auto modal share to 45% as of today.

That's Scarborough/North York/Etobicoke, which are hardly a walkers/cyclers paradise and only North York has rapid transit at levels that somewhat compare with downtown.

There's no real reason we couldn't get Brampton/Vaughan/Markham to levels already in effect in the inner burbs.

That would have an effect several times larger than the GTA West corridor and would alleviate total congestion while accommodating projected growth.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/rtp/Metrolinx%20-%202041%20Regional%20Transportation%20Plan%20%E2%80%93%20Print.pdf

I'm a one car household BTW - and I'm not the one who drives to work every day. Not like I have a huge bias here. Most of my personal driving is long range - to Michigan to visit friends, to the suburbs to see my parents, cottage country, every year or two to New Brunswick to visit family, etc.

Fundamentally, I think where we disagree is that you have your facts wrong on Europe; that you believe modal shifts large enough to handle projected growth can't be achieved (Metrolinx disagrees); and you're prepared to spend scarce dollars on projects that conflict w/good planning on the basis that better is impossible.

You seem like a nice enough person, who says (and I believe you) that you want to support good planning; you just don't believe it can achieve enough so you're prepared to water it down.

I believe it can achieve more, and we'll never know if we keep putting water in the wine.

 

[innsertnamehere]

You think Paris is anything like Brampton?

Outside of the largest European cities, auto modal shares are over 80%. Netherlands, for all its hoopla, has an 88% automobile modal share for trips. Of course Amsterdam is going to have a lower rate - just like Downtown Toronto is going to have a lower rate.

Transport — passenger transport demand and modal split

Information on the environment for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also the general public

www.eea.europa.eu

You want to counter traffic growth with modal shift? 3 million people in the GTA would be a 50% growth in population. Lets assume that trips grow by that equally.

The 2016 census had 63.69% of commuting trips in a car in the GTA. Ignoring personal trips, which have much bigger rates of auto use (in excess of 85% IIRC), to keep the amount of vehicle trips flat with a 50% larger population, you need to change that modal share to 42.46%. Good luck getting a 21% modal share drop across the GTA. The City of Toronto has a 46% auto modal share right now by comparison - that should give you an idea of the tidal shift required to get to that number.

The rate of auto commutes excluding those who rode as a passenger (as they don't generate vehicle trips) in the GTA dropped from 64.87% in 2006 to 63.69% in 2016. Presuming that trend continues, not only at the existing rate, but we manage to *double* that reduction, you are looking at at 7.08% reduction over 30 years, resulting in a 56.61% modal share. That is a significant reduction in modal share, but still results in 33% more auto trips than today.

I'm all there to drop that modal share number as far as possible. Reality is though that we are not going to get it to 42.46%. That's below New York's metro modal share (48%). That is not much higher than the likes of highly urban, extremely dense, and extremely transit friendly built forms that the likes of Paris and Amsterdam have (hint: Toronto doesn't have that). In order to do that, not only does new development have to generate essentially 0 new auto trips, you need to convert significant amounts of existing trips to transit or active modes.

I just don't see it happening. And even if we do achieve it, I imagine it will come from outsize gains in the city of Toronto with more marginal gains in the 905. There is simply no way we are going to get flat auto trip growth in the 905 over the next 30 years.

Can you send me the links to Metrolinx's projections? I seem to recall them, even with the massive expansions planned, only marginally increasing transit modal share across the GTA. Something like taking transit modal share for all trips from 12% to 14%.

 

[Northern Light]

You think Paris is anything like Brampton?

Clearly not, I'm trying very hard not to be an ass, so please don't make it clear you are one. My posts have been respectful; and properly sourced and informed, yours somewhat less so; up your game, don't lower it.

Outside of the largest European cities, auto modal shares are over 80%. Netherlands, for all its hoopla, has an 88% automobile modal share for trips. Of course Amsterdam is going to have a lower rate - just like Downtown Toronto is going to have a lower rate.
View attachment 216384

There's not a single city in that graphic, not one, no towns either; you used a national metric, that's a completely non-comparison and evidence of nothing.

I'm not comparing the modal share between North Bay and Timmins here.

Rome is among the worst cities for automotive modal share in all of Europe and is only slightly over 50%

While an examination of smaller Italian Centres shows a worst-case scenario of 70% automotive share in Livorno.

Above is from here: https://worldstreets.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/italy-modal-splits.jpg

....
Reality is though that we are not going to get it to 42.46%. That's below New York's modal share. Thats not much higher than the likes of highly urban, extremely dense, and extremely transit friendly built forms that the likes of Paris and Amsterdam have (hint: Toronto doesn't have that). In order to do that, not only does new development have to generate essentially 0 new auto trips, you need to convert significant amounts of existing trips to transit or active modes.

I just don't see it happening.

I do. The inner burbs are only 3 points above this now. To be clear, it will require significant investment, to say the least; but I believe it is do-able. But only if one prioritizes the investments to transit and active transportation and severely limits investments in net new auto capacity.

Can you send me the links to Metrolinx's projections? I seem to recall them, even with the massive expansions planned, only marginally increasing transit modal share across the GTA. Something like taking transit modal share for all trips from 12% to 14%.

I have to get some paid work done this morning, LOL, but I'll see what I can do.

 

[innsertnamehere]

A lot of Italy isn't comparable as it's much poorer. Modal shares of Dutch, British, or French cities would be more accurate.

The inner burbs aren't about 3 points above it. The entire city of Toronto, including downtown, was at 46% in 2016, or 4 points above. I imagine the inner burbs are closer to 60%.

Euro cities are listed here:

Modal share - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

to get to 42% we would need the entire 905 to have lower auto modal shares than the likes of Frankfurt (44%), Rotterdam (56%), Brussels (43%), etc. Even London isn't far below our target, at 37%.

A lot of european cities get those low modal shares with very high walking shares as well - something Toronto's built form is never going to support. Brussels has a 25% walking modal share. Good luck getting 2,000,000 people in the GTA to walk to work every day.

 

[Divas S.]

A lot of Italy isn't comparable as it's much poorer. Modal shares of Dutch, British, or French cities would be more accurate.

The inner burbs aren't about 3 points above it. The entire city of Toronto, including downtown, was at 46% in 2016, or 4 points above. I imagine the inner burbs are closer to 60%.

Euro cities are listed here:

Modal share - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

to get to 42% we would need the entire 905 to have lower auto modal shares than the likes of Frankfurt (44%), Rotterdam (56%), Brussels (43%), etc. Even London isn't far below our target, at 37%.

Changing how the 905 is built, and how people move in the communities themselves is obviously to be the biggest fish to fry, and most municipalities are working on it. Most people going to downtown are already talking transit, it's the other employment areas that are the problem, especially the hundreds of thousands of jobs around the airport that have no rapid transit, getting transit in these areas would have a big impact. Unfortunately for just building housing close to jobs, especially in the airport area, is prohibited due to flight paths and other regulations.

A lot of european cities get those low modal shares with very high walking shares as well - something Toronto's built form is never going to support. Brussels has a 25% walking modal share. Good luck getting 2,000,000 people in the GTA to walk to work every day.

I don't know why you would say that the city's built form is never going to support a high walking share, there are always new buildings going up in suburban areas that are significantly changing the built form. Considering how much growth is planned around existing and under construction transit, I highly doubt that population growth is going to have equal mode share increase.

also, why bring up Brussels of all places?? it's one of the most car-oriented cities in Europe so ofc they're going to have low amounts of walking. European cities are significantly different from ours, it's not easy to just compare not only that but each city is different so arguing what part of Europe has high or low mode share is not useful to the discussion if we're just talking about the GTA.

 

[salsa]

Well this is... interesting.

The City of the Future Could Propel the Town of Innisfil into Orbit | UrbanToronto

The Town of Innisfil north of Toronto has taken a progressive step by endorsing a futuristic master plan dubbed 'The Orbit'. Drafted by PARTISANS in conjunction with the Town's planners, it seeks to establish a new city of up to 150,000 people centred around the future Innisfil GO train station.

urbantoronto.ca

 

[Northern Light]

Well this is... interesting.

The City of the Future Could Propel the Town of Innisfil into Orbit | UrbanToronto

The Town of Innisfil north of Toronto has taken a progressive step by endorsing a futuristic master plan dubbed 'The Orbit'. Drafted by PARTISANS in conjunction with the Town's planners, it seeks to establish a new city of up to 150,000 people centred around the future Innisfil GO train station.

urbantoronto.ca

View attachment 217739

Lots of interesting ideas here; though more class 1 farmland down the drain.

A few additional observations.

Lake Simcoe has serious environmental concerns, loading the water pollution impacts of another 150,000 people onto the Lake, on top of projected growth in Barrie poses a lot problems.

These can be offset; but its not as simple as progressive planning.

One needs to find offsets.

The loss of shoreline habitat (much of this has already occurred) is also a problem.

I would like to 2 direct offsets; preservation and restoration of a large chunk of Lake Simcoe shoreline, resulting in the removal of untreated sewage/septic systems, restored, contiguous habitat, and reduced phosphorous load from farmland conversion; as well as something similar on a key tributary of the Lake, for the specific purpose of reducing nutrient load.

The amount of land restored should be equal to the greater of the land area proposed for development or the amount needed to fully offset the pollution impacts of the new city.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Well this is... interesting.

The City of the Future Could Propel the Town of Innisfil into Orbit | UrbanToronto

The Town of Innisfil north of Toronto has taken a progressive step by endorsing a futuristic master plan dubbed 'The Orbit'. Drafted by PARTISANS in conjunction with the Town's planners, it seeks to establish a new city of up to 150,000 people centred around the future Innisfil GO train station.

urbantoronto.ca

View attachment 217739

Will mom be able to tell junior to fetch a carton of milk and bread from the corner store on the walk home from school? Or will mom have to drive back and forth?

 

[Divas S.]

Will mom be able to tell junior to fetch a carton of milk and bread from the corner store on the walk home from school? Or will mom have to drive back and forth?

mum would probably have to wait 10 years for the corner store to be built..

 

[W. K. Lis]

mum would probably have to wait 10 years for the corner store to be built..

Only if it is a corporate owned chain or franchise store, and the corporations allow the change in the municipal zoning to benefit the corporations.