News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
Density and Subways, revisited


December 30, 2011

By John McGrath

Read More: http://johnmcgrath.ca/2011/12/30/density-and-subways-revisited/


Since my last lengthy post went up, a number of defenders of subways in general, and the Sheppard line in particular, have raised some objections to my argument that Toronto’s inner suburbs (Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough) don’t have the required population densities to support subways. Some objections have been from the most vociferous of Mayor Rob Ford’s supporters, and haven’t really engaged in the facts in any way. Others have been more thoughtful and deserve a real response.

- Subways cost a lot of money, and they cost more—in inflation-adjusted terms—than they used to. When Toronto built the Bloor-Danforth line, it did so at the same time as it built the University line, joining Union to St. George and building the east-west subway line from Keele to Woodbine. I can’t find an exact number for the construction costs, but this site says the estimate was $200 million in 1960 dollars. Plug that in to our Bank of Canada inflation calculator, and that’s roughly $1.5 billion in 2011 dollars for about 15 kilometers of subway. If we had to build that today using the conservative $200 million that some optimists project for subways, it would be twice as expensive to build the Bloor-Danforth line in 2011 as it was in 1966. And if it went to the more likely $300 million per kilometer, we’d be talking $4.5 billion to tunnel under the downtown, or triple the cost of the original.

- My point is that Toronto mostly built its existing subway system when it was relatively cheap to do so, in the context of a rapdily-growing postwar economy, with all the fiscal largesse that implied. Neither of those two conditions is likely to repeat itself in the Toronto area soon. So in fact, the business case for subways in the suburbs in 2011 is even more difficult, even if they were as dense as the downtown core. And they’re not, they’re really really not, and they’re unlikely to get as dense as the core anytime soon. Why? Because despite nominal commitments, this city is very hostile to density.

- So for example, it’s true that there’s a Sheppard Avenue secondary plan that allows mixed-use density along parts of Sheppard. It’s also true that the same plan forces buildings to be set back from the sidewalk in case the city decides it wants to add a seventh (!) lane to Sheppard. (That alone should make subway advocates question how serious the city is about encouraging transit.) But the building heights envisioned in these plans are still laughably small (in the 5-7 storey range) but more importantly, the secondary plan disappears once you go any distance off Sheppard.

- Zoning systems were invented to put the brakes on development, and Toronto’s does it very well. The long and short of it is that, as currently structured, it would be illegal to add the density subways require along the Sheppard corridor. Ah, but developers can appeal the official plan and zoning, right? Of course they can. But let’s be clear about what this is: the city will, if a developer pays enough money and drags the city to the OMB, and wins, allow density to increase. There are many words for this system, but “density-friendly†isn’t one of them. So yes, the system as structured is hostile to density. It’s intended to be.

- Sheppard is unlikely to support enough condo towers, especially at the 7-storey maximum councillors prefer, to make the subway a winning proposition. But that’s actually not a deal-breaker, because the far, far better way to add density to the area is not to build a canyon of condo towers but to intensify the much larger area of residential streets north and sourth of Sheppard. This is a real bonanza: just by allowing three-storey townhomes, or semi-detached duplexes, density could be added cheaply, quickly, and without radically altering the nature of a suburban residential street.

- It’s not even a suburb story, which shows that this is a city-wide problem, not at all an issue of narrow-minded suburbanites: a developer finds two homes north of St. Clair that have unusually deep back yards. He buys the lots, and wants to turn it in to a row of 18, three-storey townhouses. The area is zoned to allow townhouses, so there’s no problem, right? Wrong. City staff are concerned that the building style doesn’t conform with the existing neighbourhood of a) two-storey semi-detached homes and b) five-storey apartment buildings. Also, the fact that the townhouses won’t face on to Winona street is an issue. From the city’s perspective, the only acceptable development is to.. replace the buildings with exactly the same kind of building.

- When the TTC talks about the density needed to sustain subways, they don’t talk about people per hectare—they talk about people and/or jobs per hectare. What planners understand is that if you’re going to balance a transit system (that is, if it’s not just going to be full trains running east, and empty trains running west) you need to have a balance of people and employment spread through the region. The TTC, according to Steve Munro (who would know, after all) uses a rule of thumb of 100 people and/or jobs per hectare to support subways, which is an appealingly round number.

- Now, it’s possible this will change. It’s possible that the city will, over the objections of residents on the cul-de-sacs north of Sheppard, allow developers to come in and build townhouses and walk-up apartments. And were it to happen that area could attract a lot of business, adding for the business case for more mixed-use along Sheppard. These things are all possible. I remain skeptical that they will actually happen. The prospects in other corridors in the suburbs (like Finch) are even more bleak.

- So we’re left with: subways in Toronto’s suburbs can’t pay their way currently, are unlikely to do so in the medium-term future, and other levels of governments are unlikely to help. (Except in small, incremental ways.) The city could choose to support them with a massive tax increase, but neither voters nor politicians seem in the mood. None of this argument, by the way, is because I’m personally opposed to Rob Ford’s politics. I’m just as opposed to the Spadina extension, but Dalton McGuinty didn’t ask my opinion. What I’ve tried to do, in this post and the last, is show that there simply isn’t the business case for subways in the ‘burbs and in many ways there cannot be one, unless Toronto’s politics change radically.

.....




6601699649_fb5dd2c119_b.jpg
 
This is a great post. It's amazing the extent to which the city will protect areas of single-family homes, even when subways are nearby. Much of the Bloor-Danforth line suffers from this as well, as you walk out of the subway and there are only detached homes and semis behind a three-storey retail strip. Townhomes really are a good solution for adding density while maintaining the character of neighbourhoods.

That being said, I think the census results for 2011 will show stronger-than-predicted population growth along Sheppard.
 
i dont know why townhouses and semis are frowned upon. there has been some really nice town houses out up recently in yorkville and under some condos such as chicago in mississauga. i just got back from a new york trip where i visited my aunt in queens. everything is townhouses or semis and the areas streets such as eglinton or st clair are booming with restaurants and shops.
 
There are also quite a few going up on Keele between Finch and Steeles area, but those streets may not have had anything on them before they built houses there.
 
very nice ones being built at bayview and sheppard as well as avenue road. the problem is a mind set. for many years torontonians believed detached houses with a car or two in the driveway was the measuring stick of success. buildings were looked at as for the poor people who couldnt afford their own houses. townhomes were for people who could not afford detached property. and again transit was mainly for poor people who ciuldnt afford a car. i do think things are changing. the younger generation wants to be less car dependant and live more central. hopefully this push will cause zoning to change to fit everyone in. one could only hope.
 
A very interesting read.

The graph is a bit misleading. It shows Toronto with a density of about 5000 (50/ha). Does this mean that all of Toronto does not need any subways? Of course it is the densities (and potential for intensification) within the various areas of Toronto that count.

The treshold of 100 is met in some places, but what is not really considered is where these people are going. Some places that reach the threshold may want a means to get them downtown, and an East-West subway does little good. That is a big problem with Sheppard (and Finch) - a lot of people are using the busses going East-West, but what they really want is some transit going downtown (i.e. GO) and they could easily take a bus or BRT to get there.

For subway station location, I thought they used a catchment radius (500m to 800m) to determine feasibility. The same thing should apply to zoning, where progressively farther from the station, the density become less, meaning transitioning form tall appartements, to low rises, to town homes.
 
A very interesting read.

The graph is a bit misleading. It shows Toronto with a density of about 5000 (50/ha). Does this mean that all of Toronto does not need any subways? Of course it is the densities (and potential for intensification) within the various areas of Toronto that count.

In 2006, there were more than 80 people+jobs per ha in almost every census tract in old the boroughs of Toronto, East York, and York, all the way up to Lawrence Ave. (Except the rich neighborhoods like Rosedale and Forest Hill.)

You could (almost) justify subway everywhere in the old centre. But these people did not vote for Ford, and building subways downtown would not bring any new revenue to the TTC. So in my opinion it will never happen.
 
And also suggested that in places that actually warrant a subway that includes the use of short range rapid transit it might be too costly to consider like on Queen.
 
A very interesting read.

The graph is a bit misleading. It shows Toronto with a density of about 5000 (50/ha). Does this mean that all of Toronto does not need any subways? Of course it is the densities (and potential for intensification) within the various areas of Toronto that count.

The treshold of 100 is met in some places, but what is not really considered is where these people are going. Some places that reach the threshold may want a means to get them downtown, and an East-West subway does little good. That is a big problem with Sheppard (and Finch) - a lot of people are using the busses going East-West, but what they really want is some transit going downtown (i.e. GO) and they could easily take a bus or BRT to get there.

For subway station location, I thought they used a catchment radius (500m to 800m) to determine feasibility. The same thing should apply to zoning, where progressively farther from the station, the density become less, meaning transitioning form tall appartements, to low rises, to town homes.

5,000 I believe is city-wide average. Toronto, East York, York would be closer to 7,000 with Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York under half of that.
 
If we set a density of 100/ha then we will never build any subways because we will never build these densities without a subway. Also if there are any high density areas built without a subway they will undoubtedly have severe traffic congestion problems. Did the Yonge line north of Eglinton meet this threshold when it was first built? I think that we have to build subways first, then rezone (bite the bullet, I hate anti-density NIMBYs) to allow higher residential and employment density. In the short term at least lines like Sheppard will relieve several overcrowded bus routes and an extremely busy highway, while in the long term should attract much more employment to Sheppard/Yonge. Given that due to the greenbelt, the GTA has nowhere to grow but up, there will be lots of demand for higher density development in the future.
 
I think his article outlines the need to change the zoning around Sheppard more than not building more subways.

7 storeys along Sheppard? Seriously?

That said, I agree townhomes are a great way to increase density.
 
And have the bistros and the cafes and other retail at the sidewalk along Sheppard, with the parking behind it and the extra strip malls tucked away behind the street too with the parking.

New streets with new townhouses with mews can also be added close to Sheppard and market it as the best of both worlds having the subway and the highway at your doorstep.
 
How do other North American cities compare ?
 
A Liberty Village style development along the new subway corridors would be in order. Townhouses, Mews, walkable urban streets, parking accommodated in the background....
 

Back
Top