One of the things that I’ll often hear people say about Toronto is that we’re a car-oriented city with inadequate transit, and that’s why we simply can’t implement things like congestion pricing. Usually it’s accompanied by statements like this: “Sure, I can see how it might work in London or New York, but they have proper transit systems, and we don’t.”
But is this really fair to say?
Let’s look at some of the data from the 2022 Transportation Tomorrow Survey.
For all trips starting and ending in the City of Toronto, people driving themselves around is the dominant mode share at 45.3%. But the transit mode share is not nothing at nearly a quarter of all trips. And if you add up taking transit, walking, cycling (and other forms of micromobility), and taxiing, you get to 42% of all trips within the city. That’s a meaningful number.
For home-based work trips within the City of Toronto, the split between driving and taking transit becomes dangerously close. (A home-based work trip is a trip within the city that either starts or ends at home and is done for the purpose of work.) Driving sits at 39.4% and transit sits at 37.1%. Add in walking (10.2%), cycling/micromobility (5.8%), and taxiing/ridesharing (1.4%), and non-car forms of mobility dominate when it comes to getting to and from work.
Looking at all trips to only downtown Toronto, transit once again dominates at 40.4%. Add in the other non-car forms of mobility and we’re up to nearly 75% of all trips.
The numbers become even more pronounced if we look at only home-based work trips to downtown. In this case, transit ridership increases to 48.7%. Add in the other non-car forms of mobility and we’re now at 80%!
These are fascinating figures because, let’s say you were considering a congestion charge for motorists driving into downtown Toronto, and that the proceeds of this charge would be used to make impactful investments in transit and other mobility infrastructure. Based on this data, you’d actually be benefiting the greatest number of Torontonians.
These numbers also help to debunk the objection that people simply have no other option. If you’re coming into downtown Toronto, you have options. The transit exists, and the majority of Torontonians use it.
I guess Toronto isn’t so car-oriented after all. (The rest of the region is a different story.)
Charts via the City of Toronto (TTS 2022); cover photo by Aditya Chinchure on Unsplash
A decision on legalizing small businesses like cafés and corner stores in the interior of Toronto’s neighbourhoods — under a framework city planners had winnowed down since last year in the face of heavy opposition from residents’ associations — has once again been punted into the future.
At Toronto’s Planning and Housing committee on Thursday, officials decided to defer a decision on allowing more small businesses in neighbourhood interiors, instead green-lighting changes only along major streets and to the rules for home-based businesses, which still require final approval from city council.
Planning changes always seem to happen slowly, painfully, and incrementally. I remember giving presentations on laneway housing back in 2013-2014, and I would always say "this is inevitable — it's a question of when, not if."
At the time, this felt like a bold statement because it was nearly impossible to get a laneway house approved. You had to be cunning, willing to fight for years and, even then, you might not be successful. Now they're permitted as-of-right and they, frankly, no longer feel novel. They're just something we do around here.
Of course, the same will eventually be true of small-scale neighbourhood retail. Especially because it was what we used to do before we created rules against it. But as always, things happen slowly, painfully, and incrementally.
If you'd like to download the proposed Major Streets Zoning By-law Amendment, click here, and if you'd like to download the proposed Home Occupations Zoning By-law Amendment,
Over the years, we've spoken a lot about the benefits of cities permitting small-scale commercial uses in residential neighborhoods.
They increase overall urban vibrancy. They promote local consumption (reducing the need for people to do things like drive). And they can help reduce the barriers to entry for small businesses. These spaces tend to be more cost-effective and, in some cases, like here and here, they are spaces that the homeowner already owns.
But there are some important objections to consider. Perhaps the most common one is this: What happens if my neighbor opens a 24-hour taco stand next door? I'm fairly confident that I could single-handedly keep a taco stand in business if it opened up next to me — what an amenity — but I get the concern. It's a legitimate one.
In this part of the world, we have typically responded to this concern by restricting uses. We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater by saying, "Nope, restaurants aren't allowed, because there's a chance it could be a 24-hour taco stand and that might annoy people."
But there are alternatives.
Japan's land-use approach, for example, is (1) generally focused on what you can do (versus what you can't do) and (2) organized around intensity and nuisance. I've never developed in Japan and I don't know the exact nuances of their policy framework, but directionally I think it's an interesting way to moderate this land-use consideration.
An accountant who wants to hang a shingle is different from a coffee shop that's only open from 8am to 3pm (and doesn't have a commercial kitchen), and a coffee shop is different from Peggy Gou DJ'ing next door at an all-night taco bar. But they are all non-residential uses, and that makes them illegal in many/most residential neighborhoods.
Thinking in terms of an intensity gradient is one way to create more mixed-use communities, while at the same time respecting the local context.
One of the things that I’ll often hear people say about Toronto is that we’re a car-oriented city with inadequate transit, and that’s why we simply can’t implement things like congestion pricing. Usually it’s accompanied by statements like this: “Sure, I can see how it might work in London or New York, but they have proper transit systems, and we don’t.”
But is this really fair to say?
Let’s look at some of the data from the 2022 Transportation Tomorrow Survey.
For all trips starting and ending in the City of Toronto, people driving themselves around is the dominant mode share at 45.3%. But the transit mode share is not nothing at nearly a quarter of all trips. And if you add up taking transit, walking, cycling (and other forms of micromobility), and taxiing, you get to 42% of all trips within the city. That’s a meaningful number.
For home-based work trips within the City of Toronto, the split between driving and taking transit becomes dangerously close. (A home-based work trip is a trip within the city that either starts or ends at home and is done for the purpose of work.) Driving sits at 39.4% and transit sits at 37.1%. Add in walking (10.2%), cycling/micromobility (5.8%), and taxiing/ridesharing (1.4%), and non-car forms of mobility dominate when it comes to getting to and from work.
Looking at all trips to only downtown Toronto, transit once again dominates at 40.4%. Add in the other non-car forms of mobility and we’re up to nearly 75% of all trips.
The numbers become even more pronounced if we look at only home-based work trips to downtown. In this case, transit ridership increases to 48.7%. Add in the other non-car forms of mobility and we’re now at 80%!
These are fascinating figures because, let’s say you were considering a congestion charge for motorists driving into downtown Toronto, and that the proceeds of this charge would be used to make impactful investments in transit and other mobility infrastructure. Based on this data, you’d actually be benefiting the greatest number of Torontonians.
These numbers also help to debunk the objection that people simply have no other option. If you’re coming into downtown Toronto, you have options. The transit exists, and the majority of Torontonians use it.
I guess Toronto isn’t so car-oriented after all. (The rest of the region is a different story.)
Charts via the City of Toronto (TTS 2022); cover photo by Aditya Chinchure on Unsplash
A decision on legalizing small businesses like cafés and corner stores in the interior of Toronto’s neighbourhoods — under a framework city planners had winnowed down since last year in the face of heavy opposition from residents’ associations — has once again been punted into the future.
At Toronto’s Planning and Housing committee on Thursday, officials decided to defer a decision on allowing more small businesses in neighbourhood interiors, instead green-lighting changes only along major streets and to the rules for home-based businesses, which still require final approval from city council.
Planning changes always seem to happen slowly, painfully, and incrementally. I remember giving presentations on laneway housing back in 2013-2014, and I would always say "this is inevitable — it's a question of when, not if."
At the time, this felt like a bold statement because it was nearly impossible to get a laneway house approved. You had to be cunning, willing to fight for years and, even then, you might not be successful. Now they're permitted as-of-right and they, frankly, no longer feel novel. They're just something we do around here.
Of course, the same will eventually be true of small-scale neighbourhood retail. Especially because it was what we used to do before we created rules against it. But as always, things happen slowly, painfully, and incrementally.
If you'd like to download the proposed Major Streets Zoning By-law Amendment, click here, and if you'd like to download the proposed Home Occupations Zoning By-law Amendment,
Over the years, we've spoken a lot about the benefits of cities permitting small-scale commercial uses in residential neighborhoods.
They increase overall urban vibrancy. They promote local consumption (reducing the need for people to do things like drive). And they can help reduce the barriers to entry for small businesses. These spaces tend to be more cost-effective and, in some cases, like here and here, they are spaces that the homeowner already owns.
But there are some important objections to consider. Perhaps the most common one is this: What happens if my neighbor opens a 24-hour taco stand next door? I'm fairly confident that I could single-handedly keep a taco stand in business if it opened up next to me — what an amenity — but I get the concern. It's a legitimate one.
In this part of the world, we have typically responded to this concern by restricting uses. We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater by saying, "Nope, restaurants aren't allowed, because there's a chance it could be a 24-hour taco stand and that might annoy people."
But there are alternatives.
Japan's land-use approach, for example, is (1) generally focused on what you can do (versus what you can't do) and (2) organized around intensity and nuisance. I've never developed in Japan and I don't know the exact nuances of their policy framework, but directionally I think it's an interesting way to moderate this land-use consideration.
An accountant who wants to hang a shingle is different from a coffee shop that's only open from 8am to 3pm (and doesn't have a commercial kitchen), and a coffee shop is different from Peggy Gou DJ'ing next door at an all-night taco bar. But they are all non-residential uses, and that makes them illegal in many/most residential neighborhoods.
Thinking in terms of an intensity gradient is one way to create more mixed-use communities, while at the same time respecting the local context.
Cover photo by Dan Burton on Unsplash
Cover photo by Dan Burton on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
