Transit Fantasy Maps

[ksun]

LA is very likely the most sprawling cities in North America (I mean that in the most negative way possible). Toronto is among the least sprawling, if not the least sprawling citiy in NA. The two are hardly comparable.

No, it is common misunderstanding.

Los Angeles metro is far denser than metro New York; It is probably one of the densest in North America.
on the other hand, Gold Horseshoe has lower density than Chicagoland (comparable with similar land area).

Toronto is not an good example for containing suburban sprawl at all.

 

[LNahid2000]

No, it is common misunderstanding.

Los Angeles metro is far denser than metro New York; It is probably one of the densest in North America.
on the other hand, Gold Horseshoe has lower density than Chicagoland (comparable with similar land area).

Toronto is not an good example for containing suburban sprawl at all.

This is true, but only because the NYC metro area stretches across Long Island and into half of New Jersey. (http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/durbanism/28938/which-denser-new-york-or-los-angeles)

Looking at the cities themselves, NYC is far more dense than LA.

 

[ksun]

This is true, but only because the NYC metro area stretches across Long Island and into half of New Jersey. (http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/durbanism/28938/which-denser-new-york-or-los-angeles)

Looking at the cities themselves, NYC is far more dense than LA.

Yes, but "city" density is almost meaningless, isn't it? since city boundary is somewhat arbitrary. Metro area is always controversial through.

New York city has a density of 27,000/sq km. If Toronto wants that density, all our 2.8M people should live on the land of the previous Old City of Toronto + East York - the density will be exactly the same. I would prefer that way, but not sure if others will be willing to give up their large homes.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Metro Los Angeles and the GTA have comparable density. I don't know where people get the idea LA is like Sao Paulo.

 

[ksun]

The fact is Toronto is not that dense and LA is not that sparse. The following is the weighted density of NA cities (city proper). Toronto is similar to Philadelphia, Vancouver, and Chicago. Old Toronto is similar to San Francisco. LA is only slightly lower. (source: SSP)

New York City: 64,025 ppsm
San Francisco: 30,005 ppsm
Boston: 24,543 ppsm
Montreal: 22,064 ppsm
Vancouver: 20,397 ppsm
Philadelphia: 20,283 ppsm
Toronto: 20,124 ppsm
Chicago: 19,826 ppsm
DC: 17,459 ppsm
Los Angeles: 16,964 ppsm
Miami: 15,900 ppsm

 

[ehlow]

+1

My thoughts: The TTC is horrible and needs plenty of capital investment. However, the TTC is one of the best systems in NA. Looking at a map and saying," aha, city x has y more of z" is nice, but once you actually ride the systems and see all of "human level" details that are missing from those allegedly better systems, you'll come to appreciate the TTC more. Believe it or not, the TTC has actually been doing a lot right which is why it's so successful. And this will only get better with the tens of billions of capitol investment happening right now.

Toronto certainly does many things well:
-move a huge amount of people by running (relatively) high frequency surface routes into the suburbs
-transfers between surface routes & subways using bus bays
-low operating subsidy, very high ridership
-move a huge amount of people through downtown on streetcars
-good frequencies all day on most routes
I've personally had a good experience with it, although I mainly use the Yonge line.

I just meant that most Torontonians recognize that we urgently need to expand the system to deal with the huge ridership, which we are.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Ok back to maps.


This one is pure, blatant fantasy. It won't happen for the next 100 years, but what do you guys think?

 

[ksun]

Ok back to maps.
This one is pure, blatant fantasy. It won't happen for the next 100 years, but what do you guys think?

It is only three more subways (DRL, Sheppard and Eglinton). Upon completion, the total system is probably similar to what Chicago has today.
The fact that it is supposed to take 100 years says something about our policy making system. Expanding rapid transit should proceed any other government "programs".

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

It is only three more subways (DRL, Sheppard and Eglinton). Upon completion, the total system is probably similar to what Chicago has today.
The fact that it is supposed to take 100 years says something about our policy making system. Expanding rapid transit should proceed any other government "programs".

true
He talked about he need to renovate and overhaul the city’s aging airports, and he discussed how he expects congestion pricing to one day return and pass. “There will never be a time,” he said, “when you don’t have the opportunity or necessity to expand infrastructure.”
http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/12/20/scenes-from-future-subways-a-ceremony-amidst-construction/

 

[ehlow]

It is only three more subways (DRL, Sheppard and Eglinton). Upon completion, the total system is probably similar to what Chicago has today.
The fact that it is supposed to take 100 years says something about our policy making system. Expanding rapid transit should proceed any other government "programs".

Do you think we should have a transit tax, a new tax dedicated to funding transit expansion? If so, take a look at the provincial parties' positions on the transit tax. Only one of the three support it, you have the power to make it happen through voting next election.

 

[BurlOak]

Do you think we should have a transit tax, a new tax dedicated to funding transit expansion? If so, take a look at the provincial parties' positions on the transit tax. Only one of the three support it, you have the power to make it happen through voting next election.

A transit tax may be needed, but it can never pass because the current government has done such a terrible job of managing tax dollars and the economy in general. With a new government that spends its first term being careful and responsible with tax dollars, then some additional taxes can be sought.
They do not have to prove that every penny is spent well (i.e. a few "scandals" in the thousands of dollars can be tolerated), but the days of wasting hundred of millions or even billions must come to an end before taxpayers are asked for more.

 

[Dan416]

true yet people don't seem to realise it. Most people automatically move to low density suburbs after they are married 20km away from where they work, and then complain about the lack of good transit and expect the city to build subway to their houses. it is not reasonable.

Even the city of Toronto itself is very very sprawling, not to say the GTA. We might have relatively high density in the NA context, but that's a very very low bar and isn't exactly something we should be glad about - most NA cities don't have and don't deserve good public transit because of the way people choose to live.

I am of the opinion that the entire 2.8M Toronto population should live on half of the land we now occupy (imagine Toronto without Scarborough and Etobicoke). With that kind of density, we can build efficient rapid transit much more cheaply and efficiently. With low density, it is very hard and expensive to do so.

For example, on the Yonge line, The stretch between Eglinton and Sheppard is of very low density, with mostly single family homes on both sides, yet we need to extend our subway that far in the north because people live there. If it had half of the density of downtown, it won't be that hard to build transit.

The Spadina line and BD line are even worse. Even with existing subways, nearby neighbourhoods are of much lower density than they should be - still largely low rise (under 3 stories tall), which means hardly enough people live within walking distance. Ideally the subway routes should be dominated by mid and highrise buildings providing shelter for 5 times the number of people.

Dupont and Castle Frank stations are quite close to the core, yet this is what you see after exiting the station

http://goo.gl/maps/j93FT
http://goo.gl/maps/RksLq

We are not using areas well served by existing infrastructure, yet complain about we don't have enough of it.
If we build more housing supply and amenities close to existing subway stations, and try to sacrifice some space in choosing a home by living in denser neighbourhoods, we won't have to complain about transit nearly that much.

Both the city and its residents are too blame for the problem. The former for its bad planning and latter for its insatiable appetite for space in the suburbs.

I 100% agree with you. Why are the areas around the existing subway stations not being built up? Some subway stations are alright, but many are far underutilized.

Toronto really isn't that dense.

 

[ksun]

Do you think we should have a transit tax, a new tax dedicated to funding transit expansion? If so, take a look at the provincial parties' positions on the transit tax. Only one of the three support it, you have the power to make it happen through voting next election.

if the transit tax is spent on transit and transit only (with responsible spending, unlike the Pam Am games where CEO gets millions just for bring the project on time), I am totally fine with paying more taxes (I consider myself a fiscal conservative but transit is something I love to spend on, although I walk to work and don't really depend on subways).

Toronto has already missed the train where more extensive subway system can be built fast and cheaply (The chinese probably can finish the Eglinton Crosstown in 4 years at half the price). Now being expensive is always the excuse for non-inaction, but guess what, it will only get more expensive - far exceeding inflation. and let's be honest, Toronto will only get bigger (Vancouver hardly has decent jobs and Montreal is largely French, so people will keep moving here). With the current speed of infrastructure building, we will always be behind what we need, and there comes an opportunity cost of multi-billions every year.

Why can't we just take the poison pill and get all the subway under construction RIGHT now, instead of waiting for 10 years a time? The frivolous Spadina line extension is nothing and hardly significant in the big picture. We need the Eglinton line to YYZ, a full DRL going to Sheppard to be built right away.

What does the money come from? Cliche and stupid question. Raise debt, issue bonds, raise taxes (not property taxes, it is not just property owners that use transit), sell city asset, cut from other "programs", whatever. The province should start with firing more OPG and Hydro One executives who make over 30,000 a year and chip in more, without Toronto/GTA, there is no "Ontario".

Hardly anything is more important than building the proper transit for people and ideas to move around. We are 1/3 the size of NYC/London, why don't we have 1/3 of their rapid transit that goes everywhere? What we are doing now frustrates every citizen who actually cares about Toronto's future.

 

[ehlow]

A transit tax may be needed, but it can never pass because the current government has done such a terrible job of managing tax dollars and the economy in general. With a new government that spends its first term being careful and responsible with tax dollars, then some additional taxes can be sought.
They do not have to prove that every penny is spent well (i.e. a few "scandals" in the thousands of dollars can be tolerated), but the days of wasting hundred of millions or even billions must come to an end before taxpayers are asked for more.

Everyone should vote however they like, based on what's important to them.
However if the transit tax is an issue you care about, whether you're for or against, here's a handy chart:

Supports transit tax:
Liberals

Completely against transit tax:
Conservatives, NDP

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/12/12/tim_hudak_blasts_gas_tax_hike.html
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4267720-tim-hudak-blasts-gas-tax-hike/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/horwath-says-ndp-won-t-support-transit-taxes-1.1348579

 

[BurlOak]

Everyone should vote however they like, based on what's important to them.
However if the transit tax is an issue you care about, whether you're for or against, here's a handy chart:

Supports transit tax:
Liberals

Completely against transit tax:
Conservatives, NDP

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/12/12/tim_hudak_blasts_gas_tax_hike.html
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4267720-tim-hudak-blasts-gas-tax-hike/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/horwath-says-ndp-won-t-support-transit-taxes-1.1348579

Those who want a transit tax will no doubt vote Liberal.

Those who want better transit will consider the Billions they have wasted and most likely vote for one of the other parties.