Transit City 2, suggestions/fantasies for the future

[BMO]

Since, everybody has been posting on other threads about a future trasit city 2, I was wondering what everyone thinks should be included in the next transit city, if it ever happens, and if the first one ever gets built.

I personally believe Steeles should get LRT, and and Bathurst as well.

 

[EnviroTO]

It seems they are planning BRT on Kingston Road. I would prefer that to be upgraded in TC2. Also I would like to see a Dixon-Weston-Wilson-York Mills-Ellesmere line and a East/West Mall loop which runs from Kipling station to Eglinton.

 

[Eug]

Every major east west street should get a subway, from Etobicoke to Scarborough. Anything less is sacrilege.
Every major north south street should get a subway, too. Anything less is sacrilege.

All LRTs and trams should be dismantled, and replaced with subway.

All subways have to be underground. Anything not currently underground should be put underground.

Passenger car lanes should be reduced to 1 lane in each direction on all major streets.

All major streets should have double-width bike lanes in each direction, with drink dispensers at every km.

Etc.

 

[EnviroTO]

^ Is that Transit City 2 or Transit City 48?

 

[Eug]

^ Is that Transit City 2 or Transit City 48?

Judging by some of the posts I read in this forum, it's almost as if some people want stuff like that now. LRT SUX! IF YOU DON'T DEMAND SUBWAY YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!11

It seems they are planning BRT on Kingston Road. I would prefer that to be upgraded in TC2.

You probably are already well aware of this, but according to the TTC, any BRT plan basically automatically includes LRT upgradability since BRT lanes are already wider than LRT needs.

It may all be moot though, since the TTC considers BRT on Kingston Road a low priority, and has no intention of allocating money to it any time soon. The plan in that area is more for rezoning the area by the city to increase residential development and thus ridership. BRT may not actually happen until there is development... which can't even really start yet since the street has not yet been rezoned. So, realistically, I suspect what that means is that BRT on Kingston Road won't likely be in the cards for quite some time, which may in turn effectively mean that it's TC2 that will include BRT. LRT along Kingston Road might not be until in TC3.

BTW, one thing I wondered was why the Eglinton crosstown LRT plan doesn't go all the way to Malvern. What's the reasoning behind making two lines (Eglinton and Scarborough/Malvern) terminating at Kennedy? Is it because the projected ridership on Malvern would be much lower?

 

[Hipster Duck]

Every major east west street should get a subway, from Etobicoke to Scarborough. Anything less is sacrilege.
Every major north south street should get a subway, too. Anything less is sacrilege.

All LRTs and trams should be dismantled, and replaced with subway.

All subways have to be underground. Anything not currently underground should be put underground.

Passenger car lanes should be reduced to 1 lane in each direction on all major streets.

All major streets should have double-width bike lanes in each direction, with drink dispensers at every km.

Etc.

Wow! What a great idea! If we ever run out of money paying for all this, we'll just print more of it!

 

[waterloowarrior]

.

 

[kettal]

Finch East all the way to the Zoo

too obvious?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Before Transit City II gets going, the GTA (not just Toronto) has to focus on transit-oriented development (pedestrians, transit, bicycles) and get away from building everything for the automobile. We have to make the 905 and the outer fringes of the 415 more walkable. That means a higher density, not the high density of high-rises of separate zoned uses, but mixed-use low-rises.

 

[urbanboom]

I heard that Kipling was considered to be part of Transit City I, but just missed the cut. Perhaps it can be thrown into Transit City II.

 

[RedRocket191]

BTW, one thing I wondered was why the Eglinton crosstown LRT plan doesn't go all the way to Malvern. What's the reasoning behind making two lines (Eglinton and Scarborough/Malvern) terminating at Kennedy? Is it because the projected ridership on Malvern would be much lower?

Just because they are building stuff in smaller, more manageable chunks doesn't mean they are going to be operated in smaller chunks.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Will Transfer City 2 be a social program or an actual rapid transit plan?

 

[Eug]

Before Transit City II gets going, the GTA (not just Toronto) has to focus on transit-oriented development (pedestrians, transit, bicycles) and get away from building everything for the automobile. We have to make the 905 and the outer fringes of the 415 more walkable. That means a higher density, not the high density of high-rises of separate zoned uses, but mixed-use low-rises.

That's what the avenue studies are doing for example.

However, while they are done in conjunction with the TTC, many of the regions are low on the priority list for the TTC. So, the development of these areas is not necessarily going to go hand in hand with TTC transit upgrades right off the bat. The good news though is that plans are designed to be transit friendly, should the TTC allocate money to these areas in the future.

BTW, mixed use doesn't have to mean low rise, and IMO having just low rise isn't necessarily desirable either. I personally think stair-stepped mid-rises will often be fine or even beneficial because of the increased density. Like you seem to be, I'm not a big fan of reams of ultra high rises either, but I do think high rises also have their place in a modern city that is people and transit friendly.

Just because they are building stuff in smaller, more manageable chunks doesn't mean they are going to be operated in smaller chunks.

What I was wondering is if the Malvern line and the Eglinton line could be just one long continuous line. From what I thought from the presentations is that this wasn't going to be the case, but I could be wrong.

 

[kettal]

Would you call the building in that photo a low rise or mid rise?

 

[Eug]

My arbitrary cutoff might be something like 4-6 floors for a low(ish) rise, whereas a mid rise might be like 8-10 stories or something.

However, a stair-stepped mid-rise can look very lowish rise if done properly. From street level, you may only seen 5 or 6 floors, because the floors above that are out of view, stair-stepped in such a way to prevent shadowing.

---

Well, maybe a true low-rise would be 4 floors. So some may call that building in that picture a short mid-rise, but others may consider it a tall low-rise.

I guess my main point though is that buildings of various sizes can be very appropriate with certain developments, and limiting designs to only low-rises is probably not warranted. One not insignificant consideration here is that developers often don't like building very low-rises anyway, because they are not cost effective. The higher they go, the more profit they make, and nothing speeds up development like the lure of profits. The good news is that effective planning can mold this development in such a way that the developers get their profits, without us being saddled with rectangular boxy mid-rises and high-rises, while still offering higher density than pure low-rise developments could offer.