According to the Globe and Mail, Canada's census metropolitan areas (or city regions) grew by about 574,000 people for the year ending July 1, 2022. This is the highest number on record (or at least since Statistics Canada started tracking this figure in 2001), which is not entirely surprising given that immigration flows slowed dramatically during the pandemic.
The other thing that the pandemic did was accelerate a trend of people leaving the biggest city regions for other parts of a province. During this same time period, Vancouver saw a net intraprovincial migration loss of about 14,300 people, Montreal saw about 29,500, and Toronto saw 78,077. But again, this was a trend that was building prior to the pandemic:
It is perhaps no surprise that these losses follow the order of our largest city regions. And it once again suggests that we are not doing enough when it comes to housing supply/affordability and homes for young families. These intraprovincial losses are not because these city regions aren't desirable. It's in fact the exact opposite.
Over the past few years, I have been writing about the fall off in public transit ridership that we have seen as a result of the pandemic. Most recently, I mentioned it in my predictions for 2023.
This topic doesn't seem to get a lot of air time, but it is a problem. Because the standard way to operate a transit system in North America is at a loss.
According to this recent WSJ article, the average fare recovery ratio across the US is somewhere around 1/3, with the remaining 2/3 of operating costs being covered by public money.
(Somehow Japan has figured out a way to make money on rail.)
During the pandemic, federal aid was disbursed in order to maintain service levels. The MTA in New York, for example, received $15.1 billion. But these aid packages will eventually run out, and ridership has yet to fully return:
New York’s subway system has regained about two-thirds of its pre-pandemic ridership with about 91 million trips in November, according to the MTA. But that is about 50 million fewer rides than in November 2019. Officials worry usage has stalled out at that level.
In San Francisco, the Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, recorded 3.7 million trips in November—a little more than one-third of the ridership before Covid.
The obvious answer is likely to be a combination of service cuts and/or more public money. But an even better answer would be to use this opportunity to figure out how to make our transit systems a little more Japanese.
That is, let's make them more financially sustainable. And yes, that is going to necessarily involve looking at how we build around and on top of transit.
I came across this poster -- related to this development application -- over the weekend:
According to the Globe and Mail, Canada's census metropolitan areas (or city regions) grew by about 574,000 people for the year ending July 1, 2022. This is the highest number on record (or at least since Statistics Canada started tracking this figure in 2001), which is not entirely surprising given that immigration flows slowed dramatically during the pandemic.
The other thing that the pandemic did was accelerate a trend of people leaving the biggest city regions for other parts of a province. During this same time period, Vancouver saw a net intraprovincial migration loss of about 14,300 people, Montreal saw about 29,500, and Toronto saw 78,077. But again, this was a trend that was building prior to the pandemic:
It is perhaps no surprise that these losses follow the order of our largest city regions. And it once again suggests that we are not doing enough when it comes to housing supply/affordability and homes for young families. These intraprovincial losses are not because these city regions aren't desirable. It's in fact the exact opposite.
Over the past few years, I have been writing about the fall off in public transit ridership that we have seen as a result of the pandemic. Most recently, I mentioned it in my predictions for 2023.
This topic doesn't seem to get a lot of air time, but it is a problem. Because the standard way to operate a transit system in North America is at a loss.
According to this recent WSJ article, the average fare recovery ratio across the US is somewhere around 1/3, with the remaining 2/3 of operating costs being covered by public money.
(Somehow Japan has figured out a way to make money on rail.)
During the pandemic, federal aid was disbursed in order to maintain service levels. The MTA in New York, for example, received $15.1 billion. But these aid packages will eventually run out, and ridership has yet to fully return:
New York’s subway system has regained about two-thirds of its pre-pandemic ridership with about 91 million trips in November, according to the MTA. But that is about 50 million fewer rides than in November 2019. Officials worry usage has stalled out at that level.
In San Francisco, the Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, recorded 3.7 million trips in November—a little more than one-third of the ridership before Covid.
The obvious answer is likely to be a combination of service cuts and/or more public money. But an even better answer would be to use this opportunity to figure out how to make our transit systems a little more Japanese.
That is, let's make them more financially sustainable. And yes, that is going to necessarily involve looking at how we build around and on top of transit.
I came across this poster -- related to this development application -- over the weekend:
And I think it raises a number of important questions:
Is 2 storeys appropriate for next to a subway station and next to an existing mid-rise building?
Is a mid-rise building truly unprecedented in this context? See below.
Are mid-rise homes inappropriate for "residential streets?"
How does building height factor into flood plain concerns? Wouldn't lot coverage be more relevant?
And when does a mid-rise become a "high-rise?"
For more context, here's the proposal and its immediate surroundings:
https://twitter.com/HousingNowTO/status/1557173774016995328?s=20&t=-I9yrZU8WNE__TVthtMPWg
I fully appreciate that there's little incentive to support new development in a place where you already live -- even if you happen to live in a similarly-scaled building across the street. And I am sure that I'll receive a number of emails following this post.
But optimizing the use of land around our existing transit stations is one of the best things we can do as city builders.
Update: I have redacted the contact information on the above poster.
And I think it raises a number of important questions:
Is 2 storeys appropriate for next to a subway station and next to an existing mid-rise building?
Is a mid-rise building truly unprecedented in this context? See below.
Are mid-rise homes inappropriate for "residential streets?"
How does building height factor into flood plain concerns? Wouldn't lot coverage be more relevant?
And when does a mid-rise become a "high-rise?"
For more context, here's the proposal and its immediate surroundings:
https://twitter.com/HousingNowTO/status/1557173774016995328?s=20&t=-I9yrZU8WNE__TVthtMPWg
I fully appreciate that there's little incentive to support new development in a place where you already live -- even if you happen to live in a similarly-scaled building across the street. And I am sure that I'll receive a number of emails following this post.
But optimizing the use of land around our existing transit stations is one of the best things we can do as city builders.
Update: I have redacted the contact information on the above poster.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
