The Guardian Cities UK is currently focusing on all things Canada for a special week-long series. The first post is up and it’s about why Toronto is “the most fascinatingly boring city in the world.” The piece is by Stephen Marche.

I don’t agree with everything in the essay – or maybe I just despise being called boring, steady, and predictable – but there are a number of great gems that I would like to reblog today. Here are the 5 that stood out for me.

1. Chicago vs. Toronto:

“What Chicago was to the 20th century, Toronto will be to the 21st. Chicago was the great city of industry; Toronto will be the great city of post-industry. Chicago is grit, top-quality butchers, glorious modernist buildings and government blight; Toronto is clean jobs and artisanal ice-creameries, identical condos, excellent public schools and free healthcare for all. Chicago is a decaying factory where Americans used to make stuff. Toronto is a new bank where the tellers can speak two dozen languages.”

2. London vs. New York vs. Toronto Bankers:

“In London and New York, the worst stereotype of a banker is somebody who enjoys cocaine, Claret and vast megalomaniac schemes. In Toronto, a banker handles teachers’ pension portfolios and spends weekends at the cottage.”

3. Montreal vs. Toronto:

“I was 19 when he said that, and I knew even then that for the rest of my life, Canada’s future would be built on money and immigrants. I wasn’t wrong. Most Canadian business headquarters had already taken the five-hour drive west. After 95, the rest followed. Montreal decided to become a French-Canadian city. Toronto decided to become a global city.”

4. The last time Toronto built a white elephant subway line:

“On any given morning on the Sheppard subway line in the north of the city, you can sit down in perfect peace and order, although you will find little evidence of good government. As the latest addition to Toronto’s fraying infrastructure, the Sheppard subway is largely untroubled by urban bustle. The stations possess the discreet majesty of abandoned cathedrals, designed for vastly more people than currently use them, like ruins that have never been inhabited. Meanwhile, in the overcrowded downtown lines, passengers are stacked up the stairs. The streetcars along a single main street, Spadina, carry more people on a daily basis than the whole of the Sheppard line, whose expenses run to roughly $10 a passenger, according to one estimate. A critic has suggested that sending cabs for everybody would be cheaper.”

5. On Mayor Tory:

“The current mayor, John Tory, is not an idiot, although he is hardly a figure of the “new Toronto”. He represents, more than any other conceivable human being, the antique white anglo-saxon protestant (Wasp) elite of Toronto, his father being one of the most important lawyers in the city’s history. The old Wasps had their virtues, it has to be said – it wasn’t all inedible cucumber sandwiches and not crying at funerals.”

Blitz by Tristan O'Tierney on 500px

Back in 2011, the The Pembina Institute published a report called, Building transit where we need it. And in it they quite clearly outlined the population densities that are needed to make various types of transit investment cost effective.

For subway they specify a minimum population density of 115 people per hectare and for light rail (LRT) they specify a minimum population density of 70 people per hectare. 

And the reason for this is because there’s a strong correlation between population density (i.e. land use) and transit ridership. The two go hand in hand and should not be decoupled. If population densities are too low (as they are, for example, along the Sheppard subway line here in Toronto), people don’t take transit. They drive.

Here’s a chart from the report showing the current and projected population densities for Toronto’s existing and proposed routes (keep in mind this is from 2011).

So what does this chart tell us?

• Subways don’t make a lot of sense in many parts of the city. LRT will do just fine.

• The Sheppard subway line is an under-utilized asset. Even by 2031 we’ll barely be reaching the requisite population densities.

• The Bloor-Danforth corridor could use more intensification.

• The Yonge-University-Spadina line is going to need to relief.
  

Unfortunately, transit decisions are often made based on politics instead of data. And that results in subways in places that don’t make a lot of sense. That’s unfortunate because it means less riders, less revenue, and more subsidies.

The other challenge with running subways through low density neighborhoods is that it then creates tension when the city and developers go to intensify those neighborhoods through transit-oriented development. (See #DensityCreep.)

But if we’re going to be fiscally irresponsible about where we deploy our transit capital, the least we could do is upzone the surrounding areas and impose minimum population densities. 

In fact, here’s what I think we should do: Land use should be bundled with the transit decision. 

Instead of asking where the subway station should go, we should be asking where the subway station should go and all the density needed to bring the area up to a certain minimum population density. And if that second criteria for whatever reason can’t be met, then we don’t build the line. 

I wonder if we framed the question in this way if it would change where subway lines get approved. What do you think?

If there are two things we like to talk about here in Toronto it’s that there are a lot of condos going up and that it’s becoming increasingly difficult–some would say impossible–to get around. Just this past weekend, I had 2 or 3 people tell me that biking is the only practical way to get around downtown and that it’s fairly easy to outwalk a streetcar on either Queen Street or King Street.

Usually these statements are followed by a question, asking what the city is doing to address these issues. The unfortunate reality is that I think urban mobility is going to get worse before it gets better (although I am thrilled about the Eglinton Crosstown line now under construction). If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that I’m a supporter of a Downtown Relief Subway line and that I was disappointed by John Tory’s recent transit proposal.

The best way to explain why I feel this way is to talk about how and where Toronto is growing. In my post on John Tory’s transit proposal, I talked about how Toronto is developing in the shape of an upside down letter T. And the reason for that is because in the city’s Official Plan, the “Downtown and Central Waterfront” area is identified as a growth node and is shaped more or less like an upside T. It’s the light orange in the following map.

In addition to the downtown core, the areas shown in red are earmarked as “Centres” for growth. There’s one in each borough (Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough) and one at Yonge & Eglinton, which most people would consider to be the heart of midtown. Finally, you have the “Avenues” which are the greenish brown lines on the above map. Those are areas that city also hopes will accommodate future growth.

Now, let’s look at where development is happening in the city. Here’s residential development from 2008 to 2012. The biggest circle represents 2,000 proposed residential units.

And here’s non-residential development. The largest diamond represents projects with a non-residential floor area greater than 50,000 square meters (~540,000 square feet).

What should become immediately apparent is that growth–particularly on the residential side–is happening more or less according to plan. The biggest “outliers” are really the development happening along Mimico’s waterfront and all the development happening along Sheppard Avenue East. But those are because of the water and the Sheppard subway line.

In both the residential and non-residential cases though, the downtown and central waterfront area is quite clearly receiving a significant share of the development happening in the city.

Which always makes me wonder: Why are we so reluctant to build proper transit in the core?

The city’s Official Plan is clearly funneling growth to downtown and yet we continue to propose, fund, and build subway lines in areas where the population densities are lower and ridership levels will inevitably be less. Which ultimately means that the required government subsidies to keep those lines operating will be higher.

I’m not suggesting that the inner boroughs don’t also need top notch transit and infrastructure. They absolutely do. But I get frustrated when politics trumps rational city building. And so does everybody else who’s stuck with inadequate mobility options.

Images: City of Toronto

The Guardian Cities UK is currently focusing on all things Canada for a special week-long series. The first post is up and it’s about why Toronto is “the most fascinatingly boring city in the world.” The piece is by Stephen Marche.

I don’t agree with everything in the essay – or maybe I just despise being called boring, steady, and predictable – but there are a number of great gems that I would like to reblog today. Here are the 5 that stood out for me.

1. Chicago vs. Toronto:

“What Chicago was to the 20th century, Toronto will be to the 21st. Chicago was the great city of industry; Toronto will be the great city of post-industry. Chicago is grit, top-quality butchers, glorious modernist buildings and government blight; Toronto is clean jobs and artisanal ice-creameries, identical condos, excellent public schools and free healthcare for all. Chicago is a decaying factory where Americans used to make stuff. Toronto is a new bank where the tellers can speak two dozen languages.”

2. London vs. New York vs. Toronto Bankers:

“In London and New York, the worst stereotype of a banker is somebody who enjoys cocaine, Claret and vast megalomaniac schemes. In Toronto, a banker handles teachers’ pension portfolios and spends weekends at the cottage.”

3. Montreal vs. Toronto:

“I was 19 when he said that, and I knew even then that for the rest of my life, Canada’s future would be built on money and immigrants. I wasn’t wrong. Most Canadian business headquarters had already taken the five-hour drive west. After 95, the rest followed. Montreal decided to become a French-Canadian city. Toronto decided to become a global city.”

4. The last time Toronto built a white elephant subway line:

“On any given morning on the Sheppard subway line in the north of the city, you can sit down in perfect peace and order, although you will find little evidence of good government. As the latest addition to Toronto’s fraying infrastructure, the Sheppard subway is largely untroubled by urban bustle. The stations possess the discreet majesty of abandoned cathedrals, designed for vastly more people than currently use them, like ruins that have never been inhabited. Meanwhile, in the overcrowded downtown lines, passengers are stacked up the stairs. The streetcars along a single main street, Spadina, carry more people on a daily basis than the whole of the Sheppard line, whose expenses run to roughly $10 a passenger, according to one estimate. A critic has suggested that sending cabs for everybody would be cheaper.”

5. On Mayor Tory:

“The current mayor, John Tory, is not an idiot, although he is hardly a figure of the “new Toronto”. He represents, more than any other conceivable human being, the antique white anglo-saxon protestant (Wasp) elite of Toronto, his father being one of the most important lawyers in the city’s history. The old Wasps had their virtues, it has to be said – it wasn’t all inedible cucumber sandwiches and not crying at funerals.”

Blitz by Tristan O'Tierney on 500px

Back in 2011, the The Pembina Institute published a report called, Building transit where we need it. And in it they quite clearly outlined the population densities that are needed to make various types of transit investment cost effective.

For subway they specify a minimum population density of 115 people per hectare and for light rail (LRT) they specify a minimum population density of 70 people per hectare. 

And the reason for this is because there’s a strong correlation between population density (i.e. land use) and transit ridership. The two go hand in hand and should not be decoupled. If population densities are too low (as they are, for example, along the Sheppard subway line here in Toronto), people don’t take transit. They drive.

Here’s a chart from the report showing the current and projected population densities for Toronto’s existing and proposed routes (keep in mind this is from 2011).

So what does this chart tell us?

• Subways don’t make a lot of sense in many parts of the city. LRT will do just fine.

• The Sheppard subway line is an under-utilized asset. Even by 2031 we’ll barely be reaching the requisite population densities.

• The Bloor-Danforth corridor could use more intensification.

• The Yonge-University-Spadina line is going to need to relief.
  

Unfortunately, transit decisions are often made based on politics instead of data. And that results in subways in places that don’t make a lot of sense. That’s unfortunate because it means less riders, less revenue, and more subsidies.

The other challenge with running subways through low density neighborhoods is that it then creates tension when the city and developers go to intensify those neighborhoods through transit-oriented development. (See #DensityCreep.)

But if we’re going to be fiscally irresponsible about where we deploy our transit capital, the least we could do is upzone the surrounding areas and impose minimum population densities. 

In fact, here’s what I think we should do: Land use should be bundled with the transit decision. 

Instead of asking where the subway station should go, we should be asking where the subway station should go and all the density needed to bring the area up to a certain minimum population density. And if that second criteria for whatever reason can’t be met, then we don’t build the line. 

I wonder if we framed the question in this way if it would change where subway lines get approved. What do you think?

If there are two things we like to talk about here in Toronto it’s that there are a lot of condos going up and that it’s becoming increasingly difficult–some would say impossible–to get around. Just this past weekend, I had 2 or 3 people tell me that biking is the only practical way to get around downtown and that it’s fairly easy to outwalk a streetcar on either Queen Street or King Street.

Usually these statements are followed by a question, asking what the city is doing to address these issues. The unfortunate reality is that I think urban mobility is going to get worse before it gets better (although I am thrilled about the Eglinton Crosstown line now under construction). If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that I’m a supporter of a Downtown Relief Subway line and that I was disappointed by John Tory’s recent transit proposal.

The best way to explain why I feel this way is to talk about how and where Toronto is growing. In my post on John Tory’s transit proposal, I talked about how Toronto is developing in the shape of an upside down letter T. And the reason for that is because in the city’s Official Plan, the “Downtown and Central Waterfront” area is identified as a growth node and is shaped more or less like an upside T. It’s the light orange in the following map.

In addition to the downtown core, the areas shown in red are earmarked as “Centres” for growth. There’s one in each borough (Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough) and one at Yonge & Eglinton, which most people would consider to be the heart of midtown. Finally, you have the “Avenues” which are the greenish brown lines on the above map. Those are areas that city also hopes will accommodate future growth.

Now, let’s look at where development is happening in the city. Here’s residential development from 2008 to 2012. The biggest circle represents 2,000 proposed residential units.

And here’s non-residential development. The largest diamond represents projects with a non-residential floor area greater than 50,000 square meters (~540,000 square feet).

What should become immediately apparent is that growth–particularly on the residential side–is happening more or less according to plan. The biggest “outliers” are really the development happening along Mimico’s waterfront and all the development happening along Sheppard Avenue East. But those are because of the water and the Sheppard subway line.

In both the residential and non-residential cases though, the downtown and central waterfront area is quite clearly receiving a significant share of the development happening in the city.

Which always makes me wonder: Why are we so reluctant to build proper transit in the core?

The city’s Official Plan is clearly funneling growth to downtown and yet we continue to propose, fund, and build subway lines in areas where the population densities are lower and ridership levels will inevitably be less. Which ultimately means that the required government subsidies to keep those lines operating will be higher.

I’m not suggesting that the inner boroughs don’t also need top notch transit and infrastructure. They absolutely do. But I get frustrated when politics trumps rational city building. And so does everybody else who’s stuck with inadequate mobility options.

Images: City of Toronto