
Last week we spoke about parking space dimensions. And my point was that these dimensions can dramatically change parking designs in new developments. In the comment section of this post, you'll now find a number of examples of how these dimensions vary by city.
But the reality is that cars do keep getting bigger -- at least in this part of the world. In the 1970s, SUVs and trucks made up less than a quarter of new car sales in the US. Today, this number is greater than 80%. It has become the standard kind of car.
So this week, let's touch on why this has happened.
One argument might be that this was just what consumers inherently wanted. But there's lots of evidence to suggest that this wasn't really the case; it was instead encouraged by government policy.
One specific example is the creation of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (also known as CAFE). This was first introduced in the 1970s, but importantly, it was done with two different fuel economy standards: one for cars and one for light trucks.
Since the light truck standard was less onerous (see above chart), this created a strong incentive for car makers to just make and sell more light trucks. And curiously enough, that's exactly what they did.
For much more on this topic, check out this comprehensive Vox article by David Zipper.
https://twitter.com/RM_Transit/status/1784219694200737890
Sometimes I'll hear people in Toronto talk pejoratively about all of the development that's been happening at Yonge & Eglinton (in midtown). They'll say it's too much density.
But then you come across charts like the ones above (source previously shared here) and you realize that this location is the only section along the new Eglinton Crosstown LRT line that is actually starting to have enough people.
Based on 2021 Census data, there were about 40k people within 800m of the future Eglinton and Mount Pleasant stations. In contrast, there are many downtown stations along the Ontario Line (also under construction) with around 80k people.
Why this is important is because if the objective is to get people to ride this new transit and collect a lot of fares, then the single most important factor is going to be the amount of people that live, work, and play adjacent to each station.
Now, I'm not a transportation planner, but in my mind there are three simple ways to think and go about optimizing for this:
You can look at where population densities are already high and then add new transit to service these densities. This is what is happening with the Ontario Line and it was long overdue. We know that ridership is going to be relatively high because of the chart at the top of this post.
You can look at where there's existing transit and then work to optimize the land uses around it. This is what we should be doing a better job of along the Bloor-Danforth line, where certain station areas have actually lost people over the last few decades. This is the opposite of what you want next to transit investments.
Lastly, you can also proactively plan new transit while simultaneously encouraging more density. An example of this would be the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre (just north of Toronto). Extend the line and encourage growth. This is good. The only thing with this approach is that it can seem a bit misaligned if you're currently failing at #1 and #2.
I take the UP Express train into the office every day (here in Toronto). This is a rail service that we have spoken about many times over the years on this blog.
It started as an airport link that was too expensive, but was then repriced so that more people would use it, and use it locally. It is now widely used by people like me. I don't know the exact split, but in the mornings, it feels like majority commuters.
Then on Monday of this week, the province announced that local service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes. Supposedly this was in order to improve service between downtown and Pearson airport.
Commuters immediately reacted. In fact, while riding the train on Tuesday morning, there was quite literally a guy beside me on the phone trying to complain to his local city councillor and MPP. A petition was also started on Monday that, at the time of writing this post, had close to 6,000 supporters.
And then -- some 24 hours after the initial announcement -- the Minister of Transportation announced that the province would be walking back this service change and that he had "directed Metrolinx to not proceed." Boom.
As a daily rider, this selfishly makes me happy. But more importantly, I think it, once again, shows how quickly voices can get amplified in today's world and how important good regional express rail is to our city. Clearly we need more of this!
Sadly, it probably also shows that some people have no idea how lines like these are actually getting used. I have to believe that if anyone had looked closely at ridership and the split between local/airport, that this decision wouldn't have been made in the first place.

Last week we spoke about parking space dimensions. And my point was that these dimensions can dramatically change parking designs in new developments. In the comment section of this post, you'll now find a number of examples of how these dimensions vary by city.
But the reality is that cars do keep getting bigger -- at least in this part of the world. In the 1970s, SUVs and trucks made up less than a quarter of new car sales in the US. Today, this number is greater than 80%. It has become the standard kind of car.
So this week, let's touch on why this has happened.
One argument might be that this was just what consumers inherently wanted. But there's lots of evidence to suggest that this wasn't really the case; it was instead encouraged by government policy.
One specific example is the creation of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (also known as CAFE). This was first introduced in the 1970s, but importantly, it was done with two different fuel economy standards: one for cars and one for light trucks.
Since the light truck standard was less onerous (see above chart), this created a strong incentive for car makers to just make and sell more light trucks. And curiously enough, that's exactly what they did.
For much more on this topic, check out this comprehensive Vox article by David Zipper.
https://twitter.com/RM_Transit/status/1784219694200737890
Sometimes I'll hear people in Toronto talk pejoratively about all of the development that's been happening at Yonge & Eglinton (in midtown). They'll say it's too much density.
But then you come across charts like the ones above (source previously shared here) and you realize that this location is the only section along the new Eglinton Crosstown LRT line that is actually starting to have enough people.
Based on 2021 Census data, there were about 40k people within 800m of the future Eglinton and Mount Pleasant stations. In contrast, there are many downtown stations along the Ontario Line (also under construction) with around 80k people.
Why this is important is because if the objective is to get people to ride this new transit and collect a lot of fares, then the single most important factor is going to be the amount of people that live, work, and play adjacent to each station.
Now, I'm not a transportation planner, but in my mind there are three simple ways to think and go about optimizing for this:
You can look at where population densities are already high and then add new transit to service these densities. This is what is happening with the Ontario Line and it was long overdue. We know that ridership is going to be relatively high because of the chart at the top of this post.
You can look at where there's existing transit and then work to optimize the land uses around it. This is what we should be doing a better job of along the Bloor-Danforth line, where certain station areas have actually lost people over the last few decades. This is the opposite of what you want next to transit investments.
Lastly, you can also proactively plan new transit while simultaneously encouraging more density. An example of this would be the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre (just north of Toronto). Extend the line and encourage growth. This is good. The only thing with this approach is that it can seem a bit misaligned if you're currently failing at #1 and #2.
I take the UP Express train into the office every day (here in Toronto). This is a rail service that we have spoken about many times over the years on this blog.
It started as an airport link that was too expensive, but was then repriced so that more people would use it, and use it locally. It is now widely used by people like me. I don't know the exact split, but in the mornings, it feels like majority commuters.
Then on Monday of this week, the province announced that local service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes. Supposedly this was in order to improve service between downtown and Pearson airport.
Commuters immediately reacted. In fact, while riding the train on Tuesday morning, there was quite literally a guy beside me on the phone trying to complain to his local city councillor and MPP. A petition was also started on Monday that, at the time of writing this post, had close to 6,000 supporters.
And then -- some 24 hours after the initial announcement -- the Minister of Transportation announced that the province would be walking back this service change and that he had "directed Metrolinx to not proceed." Boom.
As a daily rider, this selfishly makes me happy. But more importantly, I think it, once again, shows how quickly voices can get amplified in today's world and how important good regional express rail is to our city. Clearly we need more of this!
Sadly, it probably also shows that some people have no idea how lines like these are actually getting used. I have to believe that if anyone had looked closely at ridership and the split between local/airport, that this decision wouldn't have been made in the first place.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog