[toronto647]

I'm confused... doesn't Toronto require 100% rental replacement at the previous cost of rent? And we have rent control in Ontario... renovictions are a thing but really who else is being displaced?

Notices have already gone out to hundreds of flemo residents

 

[turbanplanner]

My point is that there are many forms of rapid transit. Giving Scarborough the most expensive one is a bad value proposition, not to mention it takes away monies that could be used on other, more constructive things.

They already got a boondoggle with the SRT that was never extended. At least now they'll have a trip on 1 vehicle all the way to STC.

 

[TRONto]

I was referring to tearing down social housing and low income housing in Flemo and gentrifying and putting $1500 p/sqf condos in its place. Thus in essence getting rid of the low income earners mainly immigrants and them getting displaced. What is the point of 2 Subway lines for this community if they are going to lose their homes now.

You get my point?

Which buildings are Toronto Community Housing tearing down? I couldn't find anything when I searched it.

 

[turbanplanner]

Which buildings are Toronto Community Housing tearing down? I couldn't find anything when I searched it.

Might not be TCH and just a co-op?

 

[TRONto]

Might not be TCH and just a co-op?

If it's a co-op, the residents are choosing to sell (assuming each unit gets one vote). If that's all true, that is a whole lot of possible lower income citizens getting a step up. That's great and that's their right to do.

I actually was wondering if co-ops could do that. From what I remember condos can do that with a certain % of votes.

 

[Mind_the_gap]

Despite Metrolinx just ”copy and pasting” Ottawa’s LRVs, I like the fact these new Citadis cars have the third headlight above the cab (tunnel light?), which the Flexities were supposed to get in the original renders.
I just wish they’d swap out the two orange marker lights for blue ones, to give it a more Toronto feel.

 

[Bordercollie]

IMO, the connection between the two sides of Line 1 should be done by both Sheppard Subway and Finch LRT. Their roles wouldn't overlap. Sheppard Subway for the network connectivity, for example the trips between the east side and York U / Vaughan; as well as for the Wilson Yard connection. Finch LRT for taking the Etobicoke residents to Yonge without having to transfer at Keele, plus the local service on Finch West, the street that can support high density if desired.

The relative timing is mostly political, as of now it looks like Sheppard has a chance to go first (Dough Ford etc). After 2026 though, Finch LRT might have a chance, dependent on who wins the elections.

It should be noted that once the Phase 1 of Finch LRT is in operation, residents of Etobicoke and their Councillors / MPPs will be pushing to extend it both ways, east to Yonge and west to Pearson, and thus reduce the transfers.

There exists a degree of conflict between the Finch extension work and the Yonge North extension work. The work areas will not overlap, as the existing Yonge Line tracks end well north of Finch. However, the Steeles W, Steeles E, VIVA, YRT buses will need a route to bypass the work zone on Yonge to reach the Finch station. If Finch avenue is blocked at the same time, their task will be harder. Therefore, even if the Finch Keele-to-Yonge extension is funded soon after 2026, I do not expect the construction to start until early 203x, when the YNSE work is mostly completed.

Speaking about the Finch LRT alignment, I believe the current plan is good enough: street median for the most part, underground from Beecroft to Yonge. The Hydro Corridor option would be tricky in this case: new Barrie GO line crossing, the need to bypass the G. Ross Pond somehow, plus the line would be located away from the trip generators on the south of Finch: Branson Hospital and the multistoreys near Wilmington. Full underground would be an overkill, especially if the Sheppard West extension gets built as well.

The idea to keep Finch LRT underground between Keele and Dufferin is interesting, but I'm not sure if trucks really need that. To my understanding, rail tracks are not a problem for trucks, one just needs to make sure there are no fences and no LRT station structures obstructing the truck turns.

I believe there is a rule about gasoline tankers not permitted to travel above an existing subway.

I don't know what the end result was.

Oil tankers slide closer to Keele and Finch

Toronto Council shouldn't hesitate any longer to allow trucks carrying oil and gasoline to travel over the underground portion of the Finch east light rail line at Keele Street, the

www.toronto.com

 

[INTz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1585991089097416710

 

[afransen]

The topic was whether if these priority neighbourhoods really won out or whether it has expedited Gentrification within the neighbourhood.

So much this. The idea that you can build transit to target underprivileged neighbourhoods is silly. All you will end up doing is pushing those people out to other transit deserts. Only when transit deserts are eliminated will we ensure that underprivileged communities won't be displaced. Until then it will tend to bne whackamole.

 

[TRONto]

So much this. The idea that you can build transit to target underprivileged neighbourhoods is silly. All you will end up doing is pushing those people out to other transit deserts. Only when transit deserts are eliminated will we ensure that underprivileged communities won't be displaced. Until then it will tend to bne whackamole.

This is mostly because of our current immigration situation. If we were at a more modest late 90s level of immigration we wouldn't be having this issue. At that time there was essentially no development (compared to now) happening in the city. You could have put transit into all of our underserved communities (a la transit city) without having any strong type of gentrification.
With our current excessive (700 000!) levels of immigration, any area with a potential for gentrification will definitely get gentrified. Transit is not the underlying issue. We are underserved for transit. With GO RER and the current subway expansion plans, the majority of Torontonians should be a short bus ride from some sort of rapid transit station.

 

[Undead]

It's certainly the case that our growth policies are excessive and misguided, but immigration as a percent of the existing population has been steady at 1% for the last 25 years.

 

[afransen]

This is mostly because of our current immigration situation. If we were at a more modest late 90s level of immigration we wouldn't be having this issue. At that time there was essentially no development (compared to now) happening in the city. You could have put transit into all of our underserved communities (a la transit city) without having any strong type of gentrification.
With our current excessive (700 000!) levels of immigration, any area with a potential for gentrification will definitely get gentrified. Transit is not the underlying issue. We are underserved for transit. With GO RER and the current subway expansion plans, the majority of Torontonians should be a short bus ride from some sort of rapid transit station.

I think the reason there was less development in the City of Toronto in the 1990s was that population growth was being absorbed by the 905 suburbs greenfield development. Those suburbs are largely built out now and congestion is so bad that living in Milton, Georgetown, Newmarket and working in Toronto is not really that viable.

 

[Northern Light]

It's certainly the case that our growth policies are excessive and misguided, but immigration as a percent of the existing population has been steady at 1% for the last 25 years.

Well..........

A couple of things about that.

First, if we just look at the targets, that's mostly true, however, we do want to consider the cumulative effect as far as housing/transit etc.

Put another way, if our housing market once had higher vacancies/inventory and lower relative prices to other jurisdictions, the first year or two or three, may not cause the same measure of pain as later years when excess inventory
is gone and vacancies are low.

That said..........

The Immigration targets for the next 3 years (2022-2024) are 430,000+ - 450,000+ which is in the range of 1.1-1.15% of population, which is not an immaterial difference from 1% (10-15% higher)

***

But there's also that issue I've made note of many times. Foreign students, the number surged in the GTA from fewer than 10,000 to more than 55,000, requiring +45,000 beds worth of additional housing, but those numbers are not
counted in the immigration number as they aren't applying (initially) to be citizens, but rather for a study-work VISA

Statistics need not lie, to mislead.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It is simply not true that immigration was at or above 1% for the last 25 years. Landings were always well below 300,000 till the current government came in and have really only hit 1% in the last couple of years,

 

[TRONto]

It is simply not true that immigration was at or above 1% for the last 25 years. Landings were always well below 300,000 till the current government came in and have really only hit 1% in the last couple of years,

The way I see it, the % doesn't matter. Our carrying capacity for the change is what matters. Maybe our infrastructure could handle 5%.

Our levels of immigration over the past decade+ do not serve the existing or new Canadians in the GTA well as the housing expense has become too high. Transit like the Finch LRT could have been put in 20 years ago as we've always had strong bus ridership (assumption) without the gentrification pressure (see the lack of investment on the Danforth line). Now, any area that has the slightest public investment will be poised for gentrification due to housing pressure.