[taal]

I think Glen makes a very important point ...

You must differentiate between residential and commercial density ... residential density means so much less then commercial as that's really what drives mass transit.

It just doesn't work otherwise, you may argue, what if downtown was all residential and jobs were scattered elsewhere, unless you had mass transit serving all the sparse nodes (and even if you did) ridership would be very low..

 

[Dan416]

Planners, professional and armchair alike, should be careful of giving equal accord to both population and employment density. Employment density is a much larger factor in determining ridership potential than residential density. NY and LA have similar population densities yet LA would never be able to reach the ridership levels of NY with an equal amount of track miles.

In Toronto's case, other than possibly the DRL, most transit expansion plans are foolish.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_211jkr.pdf

That's absurd. Clearly the answer is to bury our heads in the sand and mope that the 905 got all the population growth and the 416 didn't, and do nothing about transit in Toronto and the rest of the GTA. That's productive.

Not.

 

[taal]

That's absurd. Clearly the answer is to bury our heads in the sand and mope that the 905 got all the population growth and the 416 didn't, and do nothing about transit in Toronto and the rest of the GTA. That's productive.

Not.

hmm, not sure how you got that out of the post ...

My take is it is in our interest to encourage dense employment hubs ... we're really not doing that today. The airport Area is in no way dense, Hi-way 7 is a decent but it's fairly sparwly.

We talk a lot about building dense residential nodes in the 905 (and continuing to develop them in the 416) but really employment is key ... residential is secondary.


What about something like: Office buildings must be over 10 stories tall, have under ground parking and from now on can only be constructed in particular areas ... the areas will be very small.

 

[Glen]

@Glen, I most definitely do agree that employment density is important, and I agree that there is not enough focus on that. However, I'm not sure what makes you say New York and Los Angeles have similar population densities... New York has way more dense housing than Los Angeles, assuming the threshold for high density is set quite high (Los Angeles might come out ahead in the 10,000-15,000ppsm range, but I don't consider that particularly dense). Also, downtown Toronto is quite well served by transit, I'm not sure how many people commute to the CBD, but once the portion of people commuting into downtown by car reaches a low enough level, it's not really worth making improvements.

Meanwhile, there are something like 2million jobs outside downtown where most people drive, so there's a lot of room for improvement there. The improvement doesn't have to be made only through transit investments of course, a lot could probably be done by adding employment around subway stations and maybe GO stations, bus terminals, etc. Not all the transit investments would have to be subways either, you could have BRTs or GO improvements too. Finally, it's still worth considering the potential for future development, as the land around existing transit lines gets intensified, new rapid transit lines can be considered in areas with more moderate densities that have land that can easily be intensified.

Sorry Memph I meant to compare LA to SF not NY. San Francisco has similar population density (slightly lower) yet has more than twice the public transit use.

While there are far more jobs located outside the downtown, these are not really candidates to serve with PT. As taal mentions, ridership that would justify the investment will need more that PT itself. Zoning should be changed to allow (as of right), a min. of 10 storey comercial within 700 meters of a subway station. I would go so far as to not permitt anything less.

 

[k10ery]

So I think this is what k10ery wanted. Again, the old city clearly has more density. If you measure rapid transit suitability as "population above x density", North York is second most suitable... although several of its high density areas already have subways. The third most suitable depends on the density threshold. I think it's still fair to say though that the suburbs aren't all that different from each other. I have a version on the graph that's linear on the x axis in addition to logarithmic since that's what some people seem to prefer (I still prefer logarithmic).

Very nice. What you have there is a cumulative distribution function. For the Lorenz curve, instead of putting log density on the x axis, you put the percentiles of density.

With the cumulative distribution function, we can say e.g. That 40% of tracts in Toronto have density above 100/ha, and the next highest is North York with only about 10%. With the Lorenz curve we can say e.g. That the top 20% of tracts in Toronto have 80% of the total population, or whatever. I think they're both useful for thinking about density within the city.

EDIT: no, I'm wrong. Your curve tells me that 40% of people in Toronto are in tracts over 100/ha, not 40% of tracts. So it is so the cumulative distribution function for the density that individual people experience, rather than the c.d.f. for tract density. I am beginning to see how perceived density can be useful!

 

[sixrings]

how do you make office development happen around stations tho? id rather guarenteed development through condos then the hope one day this area will be offices. the only way i figure we can guarentee office development happens if we basically give away the land on condition of high rise office and then we also agree to tax the space less then 905, even in desirable areas of toronto. is that a good exchange? hmmm

 

[M II A II R II K]

Have all of the above close to stations. Office buildings and condos with retail podiums and cafe's and stuff at the bottom at the sidewalk, and put the parking behind the buildings through easily accessible laneways with the strip malls at the back too.

 

[Memph]

Sorry Memph I meant to compare LA to SF not NY. San Francisco has similar population density (slightly lower) yet has more than twice the public transit use.

While there are far more jobs located outside the downtown, these are not really candidates to serve with PT. As taal mentions, ridership that would justify the investment will need more that PT itself. Zoning should be changed to allow (as of right), a min. of 10 storey comercial within 700 meters of a subway station. I would go so far as to not permitt anything less.

That makes more sense, but how much of the difference between SF and LA is due to the quality of transit and how much is due to employment density?

Assuming wikipedia's numbers are accurate, LA's heavy rail performs a lot better than SF's, and SF's light rail doesn't perform that much better than LA's (sort by ridership per mile).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Rapid_Transit_systems_by_Ridership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership

Anyways, I think employment and residential density are both important. A more general approach of "trip generation per mile" would be good too, which would also taking into account shopping, leisure, going to school, etc.

Re Zoning: no disagreement there, unless there are historical buildings, you should zone to allow for very high density within walking distance of rapid transit (not just along the avenue)... maybe with the fewer and fewer height restrictions the closer you get to the station. However, I don't think forbidding anything under 10 storeys will work. If there aren't enough jobs near subway stations, placing restrictions like that won't improve the situation. I think it would be better to try to increase demand near rapid transit. You could have lower taxes near transit and higher taxes away from transit, or you could upgrade highways less, or zone as to prevent too much employment in places with little transit.

 

[kEiThZ]

How do other North American cities compare ?

+1

Why the cherry-picking? Why just New York? There are other cities around the world with subways too.

Next, the argument that subways get more expensive with time, if anything, is an argument to build subways now. If in 10-20 years, subways cost $500 million per km, we're going to regret not building them right now.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Unless they get a boring machine that can vapourize rock as it goes through it, and would be a lot faster too.

 

[mskashmoney]

There could be a move for some short subway lines and elevated RTs to relieve downtown transit as well as make it a lot easier to zip around downtown.

Like a line that includes stops at Spadina, Harbord, Kensington, Chinatown, St. Patrick, Atrium, Dundas Square, Jarvis, Sherbourne, Regent Park, Cabbage Town, St. Jamestown, and end at Castle Frank.

I registered for this forum specifically for the purpose of letting you know that I love this idea. I live in St. Jamestown, and it's a shame that it's such a pain to get to, say, Queen and Ossington because it takes 45 minutes and it shouldn't have to be that way. I think we need to invest in downtown transit where people need it. I can't have a car, I don't have a choice. I can leave this place...I did it 2004-2010 and Brazil is starting to look good now...

I think that's the cost of this suburban NIMBY-ist mentality at city hall that is so averse to letting this city develop and actually look like a city with multiple transit lines. It's actually a bit of a lame place. So sorry to say, but I've travelled and like a lively neighbourhood, not some two-story detached suburb where the sidewalks get rolled up at 7pm. And the NIMBY-ists at Riverdale and High Park seem to prefer it that way. A downtown relief line would pass through those areas.

C

p.s. ever wonder why Steve Munro, the computer programmer by day/transit guru by night, NEVER advocates a downtown relief line? He lives in Riverdale. What a surprise!

 

[nfitz]

p.s. ever wonder why Steve Munro, the computer programmer by day/transit guru by night, NEVER advocates a downtown relief line? He lives in Riverdale. What a surprise!

Of course, your rant is totally destroyed as Munro HAS advocated for a downtown relief line. In public, at a TTC Commission meeting on January 29, 2009.

And such a line would be a lot more useful getting someone from Riverdale to Queen/Ossington than it would be from St. Jamestown ...

Welcome to the forum - hopefully your next post will not be so slanderously incorrect.

 

[Voltz]

p.s. ever wonder why Steve Munro, the computer programmer by day/transit guru by night, NEVER advocates a downtown relief line? He lives in Riverdale. What a surprise!

That is not even remotely true.

 

[mskashmoney]

Visit his website. It's not part of his "Grand Plan" nor is it mentioned anywhere.

He also blocks and doesn't publish comments from people who disagree with him and I'm one of those people.

If you have some concrete proof about a streetcar "fanatic" advocating the DRL then pass it along. But he's been on my hitlist for sometime and I have the guy covered.

Next.

 

[mskashmoney]

...hopefully your next post will not be so slanderously incorrect.

And my post is not slanderous at all. Your reaction however demonstrates that my words affected you emotionally, prompting you use such a term.

Don't get emotional, it's just a subway. And whether they get built or not becomes a problem when the most talented young people leave this city because it's just so lame. No other way to describe it.