Transit City Plan

[howl]

. . .

The Yonge Line should go north as far as Steeles for Yonge since the ridership north on Yonge only justify a BRT now, let along LRT. Once GO is upgraded to all day service, running every 15 minutes and this includes the existing infrastructure, will not need a subway for a least a 100 years due to the density between Steeles and Highway 7. It may get to Clark, but beyond that, no density unless you bulldoze the area 100%.

. . .

The idea is to extend the Yonge line to Highway 7. There are three of reasons for this:

1. The Yonge/Highway 7 area has a LOT of re-developable land and is designated as an Urban Growth Centre with a target of 200 ppj/ha. That's 35,000 people and jobs (compared to 2,600 in 2001). It will be the major urban focus for York Region in twenty years.
2. The proximity to Highway 7 and Highway 407 will make this location a great hub for park-and-ride commuters. This will take a lot of the pressure off Finch allowing that area to re-develop more intensely.
3. The GO station at this location can be used to connect people from northern York Region to jobs along the Yonge corridor north of downtown. This will improve the viability of uptown and mid-town Toronto as office nodes.

The assertion that the subway shouldn’t go north of Steeles because there isn’t the demand yet illustrates the problem lay-people (and armchair planners) have in understanding transit planning. It takes a long time to plan and build a higher-order transit system and it takes a long time to develop urban centres. The two must be coordinated – building the subway to Highway 7 will allow the Richmond Hill Urban Growth Centre to grow, but the subway must be there before people large number of people can move in.

Planning Transit isn't just about solving the immediate problems. It’s about making informed choices and coordinating all environmental, social, land use and transportation plans so that all system work in an integrated manner in the future.

 

[kEiThZ]

@howl

Be careful. There are some here who think the concept of urban growth centres is all hooey.

 

[sixrings]

Thats because ppl think that every area is a urban growth centre.... This only compunds traffic which is getting worse...

 

[Ed Drass]

snipped from the Post's Chris Selley, on Ford's intentions:

If a subway plan costs $7-billion and you've got $2.8-billion to spend … well,
you don't have a subway plan regardless of how many friends on Council you have.
I really don't get the impression he's willing to back off the "no surface rail"
pledge.

At this point, a big fat nothing strikes me as a more likely outcome. So it'd
sure be interesting to see a poll asking the same people who prefer subways over
streetcars if they'd prefer buses over streetcars. Because increasingly, that
looks to be the real choice.

Read more:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/1...the-slow-death-of-transit-city/#ixzz17ern5Yx8

http://is.gd/isKU1

 

[howl]

@howl

Be careful. There are some here who think the concept of urban growth centres is all hooey.

Admittedly most Urban Growth Centres (UGC's) will not reach their PPJ/ha targets by the 2031 target date. Some may not even get started until after 2031 particulary if the Metrolinx Transit plan doesn't get off the ground. But UGC are Provincial legislation that ALL municipalities and provincial agencies must respect in their planning. Unless the next Provincial Government pulls a Rob Ford and undoes all the planning work that has been going on for the last decade it's what every transportation and landuse planner has to assume will happen. It's also what the development industry uses to make their critical decisions when buying lands. If the Provincial Government says you can put 35,000 people in the Richmond Hill UGC then developers are banking on those numbers when they do their pro formas. If the Government suddenly changes the rules there will be a lot of unhappy developers and investors out there.

 

[SimonP]

@howl

Be careful. There are some here who think the concept of urban growth centres is all hooey.

I sure do. You can't just zone a bunch of parking lots for office towers and expect it to become a new downtown.

Here are some numbers on how many workers there are per employment district:
Downtown - 420,000
North York City Centre - 35,000
Yonge-Elginton - 32,000
Scarborough City Centre - 13,600
Etobicoke City Centre - 10,100

SCC and ECC are tiny compared to downtown, and a blip in the data among 1,300,000 workers city wide. They aren't growing either, both have shrunk over the last five years. All numbers from here. After 30 years of this strategy they are nowhere close to having a real impact on Toronto employment patterns.

NYCC is far more successful, but it's form is very different. Rather than office towers built in parking lots, or around one giant mall, it has been built along a major street that is accommodating to street life. It's able to support a pedestrian culture, and as such is a more hospitable place both to live and to work.

Rather than build a transit system to help the 60,000 people who work in suburban growth centres, why not build a system that serves the 400,000 people who work downtown (the DRL) and the 800,000 people who work in outlying districts that are not growth centres (LRT on major avenues)

 

[gweed123]

I sure do. You can't just zone a bunch of parking lots for office towers and expect it to be come a new downtown.

Here are some numbers on how many workers there are per employment district:
Downtown - 420,000
North York City Centre - 35,000
Yonge-Elginton - 32,000
Scarborough City Centre - 13,600
Etobicoke City Centre - 10,100

SCC and ECC are tiny compared to downtown, and a blip in the data among 1,300,000 workers city wide. They aren't growing either, both have shrunk over the last five years. All numbers from here. After 30 years of this strategy they are nowhere close to having a real impact on Toronto employment patterns.

NYCC is far more successful, but it's form is very different. Rather than office towers built in parking lots, or around one giant mall, it has been built along a major street that is accommodating to street life. It's able to support a pedestrian culture, and as such is a more hospitable place both to live and to work.

Rather than build a transit system to help the 60,000 people who work in suburban growth centres, why not build a system that serves the 400,000 people who work downtown (the DRL) and the 800,000 people who work in outlying districts that are not growth centres (LRT on major avenues)

You can't look at just employment numbers though. Remember, Growth Centres are not just employment nodes, they're also high density residential nodes. The more people you locate within walking distance of a rapid transit line, the higher the potential usage.

 

[SimonP]

You can't look at just employment numbers though. Remember, Growth Centres are not just employment nodes, they're also high density residential nodes. The more people you locate within walking distance of a rapid transit line, the higher the potential usage.

Very true, but only NYCC is really high density. The "tower in a parking lot" design of SCC does not lead to much density. Over the entire area it's 6400 people per km2, that's only somewhat above the overall city average of 4000 people per km2.

A subway to SCC might get two stations with 6400 per km2 density nearby. By contrast the mixed density neighbourhoods along Elginton West, such as Fairbanks and Humewood-Cedarvale, average 8000 ppkm2 and you could build at a half dozen stations that each hit this density.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The idea is to extend the Yonge line to Highway 7. There are three of reasons for this:

1. The Yonge/Highway 7 area has a LOT of re-developable land and is designated as an Urban Growth Centre with a target of 200 ppj/ha. That's 35,000 people and jobs (compared to 2,600 in 2001). It will be the major urban focus for York Region in twenty years.
2. The proximity to Highway 7 and Highway 407 will make this location a great hub for park-and-ride commuters. This will take a lot of the pressure off Finch allowing that area to re-develop more intensely.
3. The GO station at this location can be used to connect people from northern York Region to jobs along the Yonge corridor north of downtown. This will improve the viability of uptown and mid-town Toronto as office nodes.
...
Planning Transit isn't just about solving the immediate problems. It’s about making informed choices and coordinating all environmental, social, land use and transportation plans so that all system work in an integrated manner in the future.

Here here! I'd just add one correction as you might actually be lowballing the density targets for Yonge/7.
Markham's half (Langstaff) is about 30,000 residents and 15,000 jobs. Richmond Hill's half is about 16,000 of each. So the population alone is almost 50,000. That doesn't count the plans Markham and Vaughan have ALONG Yonge, north of Steeles which is, IIRC, another 25K residents or so.

So, with all due respect, anyone who says there is "no density unless you bulldoze the area 100%" is 100% incorrect. It is, I think it's fair to say, one of the most significant targeted growth nodes in the GTA, if not the province, in fact. I understand there's some sceptiscism out there and certainly this area will develop more slowly if the subway is not announced soon (some of the development legally requires it) but all you have to do is look at North York Centre to see it's inevitable. These aren't random parking lots with dense zoning - it's super-prime land along Yonge Street.

Also, I've been wondering. During the the campaign Ford went on and on about how he can reapportion the $3.7 billion for subways. Does he now understand that $800M of that is York Region's? Given his typical grasp of numbers I doubt that affects his plans at all but I'm still curious if he thinks McGuinty will give him money allocated to another municipality...

 

[SimonP]

Here is a map from 1974 showing how many job were planned to be at each centre by 2001.:

Downtown and Yonge and Eglinton have exceeded targets. NYCC is somewhat below, and SCC is less than half what was planned for.

 

[howl]

The problem with the Scarborough Town Centre is that the majority of it is owned by Oxford Properties who are in the business of running a mall, not building an urban centre. Eventually the value of the land will make the re-development potential too much for Oxford to ignore and boom! the parking lots are prime real estate. Ten years ago very few people believed the CityPlace would ever take off, but now it’s one of the hottest locations in the City. The same thing is going to happen to SCC some day.

When considering locations for Urban Growth Centres the amount of available land is an important consideration. Scarborough, Etobicoke and Richmond Hill/Langstaff centres all have lots of land available for new development, meaning they will all probably reach their targets (eventually).

 

[nfitz]

BEING 120% LRT only (even if you do have facts) simply makes you and other LRT advocates

I've advocated 4 subway projects in Toronto. Spadina Extension, Yonge Extension, Downtown line, and Sheppard Extension to Victoria Park. I've even made positive noises about a 5th project - a Sheppard West subway to Downsview, even though the ridership is low.

I'm not sure how that makes me 120% LRT only!

That being said, it's not the worst subway in the world (which was likely Smitherman's Bloor extension from East Mall to Sherway).

 

[sixrings]

You would support a Spadina extension? The only reason I am in favour of it is because it wasnt paid for by us. But even then we will have to maintain it. Sheppard extension to Victoria park doesnt make much sense to me either with the following logic. If we build LRT on Don Mills and you were to go north on Don Mills to Sheppard then to go east you would have to take a one subway stop trip to simply transfer again onto a bus or LRT. Of course my objection of transfers is contingent on Don Mills being completed.

 

[sixrings]

I'm not sure how that makes me 120% LRT only!

If you said the lines you stated more often people wouldnt think you were solely LRT> But when you argue viligantly for LRT based on these stats and countless information that no one has time to dig up and in this case dont care to read, it comes off that you are not negotiable.

 

[SimonP]

When considering locations for Urban Growth Centres the amount of available land is an important consideration.

Is it really? In 35 years downtown, the area with less vacant land than anywhere, added over 200,000 jobs. Yonge-St Clair, Yonge-Eglinton are also spots that have grown. By contrast areas with plenty of vacant or underused land like SCC, ECC, and East Danforth have had disappointing growth.

Available land matters when density is a negative, e.g. for single family homes. Where density is a neutral to positive factor, such as office towers and condos, availability of land is far less important. There are a million places in Toronto where a developer could have put in 200 units far more cheaply and efficiently than Trump Tower, but there is vastly more demand for units in that part of town. If an area is desirable enough, a shortage of easy to develop land is little hindrance.

You can add all the zoning incentives and transit lines you like, but if an area is not one where people have a strong desire to live and work, it's not going to be very successful.