[Rainforest]

John McGrath's analysis focuses on the densities around the subway corridors, but totally ignores the feeder routes.

Meanwhile, all subway lines in Toronto (even the Yonge line surrounded by high density clusters) draw the majority of their riders from the feeder routes. One can point out that the downtown stations are exempt from that rule. But the majority of trips to / from those stations include a surface feeder at the other end.

Arguably, a subway running through a lower dencity area but anchoring a lot of feeder routes might achieve higher total ridership than a subway through a more dence area but without feeders.

 

[11th]

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.

Sheppard lacks the kind of 2~3 storeys mixed-use row buildings that line streets such as Yonge, Eglinton West, Bloor, Queen, etc. So it will never achieve the kind of streetscape you see on those older-established commercial streets unless there's some massive rezoning and infills. What we currently get are 7 storeys condos with small commercial units at street level, with a lot of setback from the curb.

 

[rbt]

Arguably, a subway running through a lower dencity area but anchoring a lot of feeder routes might achieve higher total ridership than a subway through a more dence area but without feeders.

Feeder routes can dump riders nearly anywhere, including GO stations.

We could have 5 minute or better all-day service on a pair of GO lines over their entire length, complete with downtown tunnel to bypass Union Station, for the same price as Sheppard subway to SCC.

You build a train line underground because very high capacity is required in that exact location. Sheppard is a lot like New York's G line in terms of location. G-Line gets about 120,000 weekday riders; 3 times Sheppard's ridership and 3 times the length. Study the G line and see Sheppard's future.

I do agree Sheppard should be built. I can come up with about $50B worth of higher priorities (in terms of benefit economically and in ridership) over Sheppard though.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Sheppard lacks the kind of 2~3 storeys mixed-use row buildings that line streets such as Yonge, Eglinton West, Bloor, Queen, etc. So it will never achieve the kind of streetscape you see on those older-established commercial streets unless there's some massive rezoning and infills. What we currently get are 7 storeys condos with small commercial units at street level, with a lot of setback from the curb.

And these days no one wants to recreate that kind of density. So build it where the density already exists and leave the rest to Commuter Rail with convenient connections in sparsely trafficked and loose areas.

 

[EnviroTO]

I think the analysis is quite fair. There is this push for a subway on Sheppard but really the amount of intensification that will be seen is limited to lots directly fronting Sheppard and close to the well spaced out stations. The Official Plan lays it out... intensification of the avenues is a plan to intensify the lots fronting the main streets with buildings 10 storeys or less and to minimize impact to the neighbourhoods of detached homes behind them. The roads themselves, in the suburbs, are 6 active lanes plus a turn lane compared to the 2 active lanes and 2 obstructed lanes seen in the old city. The car is in a better competitive position and the density will never match so why it the transit solution the same but with stations further apart?

While dumping a whole lot of surface routes into a station may drive up the numbers for a station it doesn't make the system cost effective. Bus routes have the highest operational cost and even in the residential periphery of Brooklyn the subway stations are spaced 500m to 600m apart and are more affordably constructed surface lines while our new stations are typically 1 to 2km apart and underground. Is it really important that the ridership at a station where costly bus route funnelling has been employed and where it is the only station in a 2km stretch can best the numbers of one of the 4 stations in a 2km stretch where there is little need to funnel traffic into the station on a more cheaply built surface line?

In a roadway metaphor the situation is like having a road network of local streets and freeways only, but no arterials, collectors, and secondary collectors. You may be able to fill a freeway by providing no alternate to the freeway but the result isn't necessarily an optimal network.

 

[js97]

I think Rob Ford and the people @ Metrolinks should just begin building the underground LRT from Yonge out, and decide in 2014 if it will go underground or not. This way, at least something will get started. The tunelling and tracks are not going to get anywhere near Laird in the next 3 years.

 

[nfitz]

I think Rob Ford and the people @ Metrolinks should just begin building the underground LRT from Yonge out, and decide in 2014 if it will go underground or not. This way, at least something will get started.

They are already digging the hole in the ground at Eglinton just east of Black Creek to put in the tunnel boring machines, and plan to start tunelling later this year.

What would be gained by delaying things to start at Yonge instead?

 

[js97]

They are already digging the hole in the ground at Eglinton just east of Black Creek to put in the tunnel boring machines, and plan to start tunelling later this year.

What would be gained by delaying things to start at Yonge instead?

Recude the cost associated with changes. The underground portion from Yonge, both ways are the only sections that all parties seem to agree on.
Why make a decision on a section of the project that won't be complete until 2020? New political leaderships bring in new mandates... I just don't want a potential new mayor to burry existing tunnels ... that is a waste

 

[nfitz]

The underground portion from Yonge, both ways are the only sections that all parties seem to agree on.

And presumably that's why they are already digging this, starting from Black Creek and heading east. Not sure what your proposing here that would not slow down the project.

 

[M II A II R II K]

I wonder how the suburban stretches of Eglinton will get rezoned, if at all.

 

[11th]

I wonder how the suburban stretches of Eglinton will get rezoned, if at all.

It will have the same problem as Sheppard. But from this map , one wonders if developers will be more enticed to build on Sheppard East vs. Eglinton East (east of DVP).

 

[Electrify]

A couple of observations I'd like to make:

1. While it is true that there has been major density increases along Sheppard thanks to the subway, the inner suburbs are far denser than the outer suburbs. Long before the subway, there were hundreds high rises scattered across Metro's landscape, with more popping up all the time. While it is certainly true that overall the outer 416's density is lower than Toronto proper's, it would be interesting to see how certain census tracts compare in terms of density with the old city.

2. With the exception of some of the new posh condos, many of the older ones tend to be apartments priced for those with lower to moderate incomes. The unfortunate North American reality is that this group tends to use transit more than the upper classes. While this is changing, in many cases unless one chooses to buy near a rapid transit station and has their workplace located near another such station, they will most likely drive.

Now I do not support extending the Sheppard subway, but I don't think Transit City was the right course either. I just felt this was the right time to bring up these two often overlooked factors in this debate.

 

[Disparishun]

- (...) 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.

False dichotomy. Three-storeys and semi-detached should be allowed everywhere within 2 km or so of Yonge and of Sheppard East in North York, which -- between what will be a condo forest on Yonge from 401 to Steeles, and the stubway route -- is basically the downtown North York corridor.

Whether or not you continue with a canyon of condos along those corridors is really an additional and separate question, though I don't see why not. It means better traffic planning and a war on cul-de-sacs, but that has to happen anyway.

Feeder routes can dump riders nearly anywhere, including GO stations.

We could have 5 minute or better all-day service on a pair of GO lines over their entire length, complete with downtown tunnel to bypass Union Station, for the same price as Sheppard subway to SCC.

We should be doing that anyway, or something like it. Along with slight station realignments to ensure GO, subway, and LRT stations are colocated wherever possible, and integrated fare-by-distance across the board to make it work.

 

[canarob]

1. While it is true that there has been major density increases along Sheppard thanks to the subway, the inner suburbs are far denser than the outer suburbs. Long before the subway, there were hundreds high rises scattered across Metro's landscape, with more popping up all the time. While it is certainly true that overall the outer 416's density is lower than Toronto proper's, it would be interesting to see how certain census tracts compare in terms of density with the old city.

I wonder if this will always be the case? Much of what's being built in the "inner 905" these days consists of townhomes and mid/high-rise condos at densities that are similar to older downtown neighbourhoods. Obviously there is a lot of catching up to do, and the low-density neighbourhoods built in the past 50 years can only be intensified so much, but the 905 has the advantage of still having some large undeveloped tracks of land.

 

[Memph]

I wonder if this will always be the case? Much of what's being built in the "inner 905" these days consists of townhomes and mid/high-rise condos at densities that are similar to older downtown neighbourhoods. Obviously there is a lot of catching up to do, and the low-density neighbourhoods built in the past 50 years can only be intensified so much, but the 905 has the advantage of still having some large undeveloped tracks of land.

Even areas that have just detached and semi detached homes are quite dense. There are some subdivisions like this with densities in the 6000-8000 ppl/km2 range. A good way to see what kind of densities the average person lives at is weighted density. I calculated the weighted densities of different parts of the GTA by census tract. I did this by taking the density of each census tract and multiplying by the percentage of the city or suburb's population that lives in that census tract. Here are the weighted densities of different parts of the GTA in people per km2:

Old Toronto: 11,254
East York: 9,125
York: 7,472
North York: 5,977
Scarborough: 4,859
Etobicoke: 4,672
Mississauga: 4,492
Brampton: 3,787
Markham: 3,186

So Mississauga and even Brampton are not too far behind Scarborough and Etobicoke. While they're not as heavy on highrises, the single family areas are often denser, with smaller lots, larger homes and larger households.

As for specific census tracts, there are more very dense census tracts closer to downtown relative to population, but there are still some in the suburbs.

The densest in Toronto as of 2006 (in order) are:

St Jamestown: 64,636
SW Corner of Yonge/Bloor: 44,489
North York Centre (Doris-Sheppard-Yonge-Churchill): 37,683
High Park North, West half: 37,276
Alton Towers Cir in Scarborough, East half: 33,219
Kaneff Crescent area, Mississauga: 27,926
Yonge-Broadway-Mt Pleasant-Keewatin: 26,185
Church-Carlton-Jarvis-Bloor: 26,015