[Lone Primate]

I have often thought that the biggest oversight in GTA planning was the concept that providing jobs in the suburbs will reduce commute times.

It did for me. I had a 15 mintue interurban drive for ten years (barring bad weather or the occasional traffic tie-up, of course). It was a trip of about seven miles. Lived, as you mentioned, in Toronto and worked in Markham.

Now, I take a bus and a subway a trip of roughly two miles. I never even leave the city. The trip takes 25 minutes in the morning, and about 40 minutes in the evening.

For me, and I'm sure for many others, your epic fall epicly fails. The reason we have the typical commute times we do now was because of boneheaded decisions made in the latter 1960s, and I'm not afraid to say so. There were realities on the ground, and they were ignored for pie in the sky "what if" social engineering fantasies that faceplanted by the mid-70s.

 

[Anth]

People live where it makes sense, and they do their best to work it out. That's just how it is.

This is worth repeating for the majority of single twentysomethings on this board who seem to think an entire family can just uproot every time someone changes jobs.

 

[valkoholic]

As far as East Beaver Creek goes, I worked in that vicinity for ten years, and I can assert that Hwy 7 is crawling with VIVA buses. As I've said elsewhere, there was a TTC line that ran virtually from my front door to my office building. But I never took it because it would have cost over ten dollars a day thanks to the arbitrary double fare at Steeles; considerably more than I was paying in gas. It was largely an option for people already living in York Region. But I knew a lot of people who didn't drive to work in Markham; some of them surprisingly well-off, too. There is transit in and around our industrial parks, and lots of people make use of it. Lots of people drive, too, for various reasons (have to drop the kids off on the way, spouses live half way between different jobs, things to do at lunch time, etc.).

As of 2006 I believe 95% of people who work in Beaver Creek drive to work. The mode split is probably better than other employment areas, but it's still brutal. It's also worse than that of people living in GO train communities (say, south Pickering), where the rate drops to maybe 90%.

 

[doady]

Decentralization actually increases transit ridership. Just compare all the 905 municipalities, the ones with the most employment have the best ridership. Mississauga has the ridership per capita for the reason. Compare the busiest 905 routes, the ones that serve a lot of commercial or industrial districts are the busiest: Hurontario, Steeles (Brampton), Dixie, Eglinton, etc.

Centralization make transports more inefficient. First off, the travel becomes unidirectional. Transit vehicles may be full going in, but they will come back empty. Second of all, centralization means that transport system requires higher capacity. Imagine a train trip in a 100% centralized city (all jobs in city centre) in the AM. In the entire trip, it only picks people up, no passenger ever gets off until the last station. In the PM, it only pick people at the first station and never picks any more passengers. Compare this with a decentralized city, where the train is constantly picking up and dropping off passengers at each station in both directions. The train system in the decentralized city is far more efficient because there is no turnover in passengers. A single transit trip can carry many many times more passengers in the decentralized city than one in the centralized city.

Centralization is not a post war phenomenon. It started with the inception of business districts in the 1800s, and hit its peak during the age of streetcar suburbs decades before the 1950s. Centralization does not at all mean segregated land uses, it just means keeping office type jobs in the inner part of the city so that it's easier to provide transit to the greatest number of people. The downtown area itself should be as mixed use as possible, as should remaining parts of the region with respect to retail and neighbourhood amenities.

And yet what examples can you give of predominately pre-war cities that highly centralized? Is London highly centralized? Paris?

As I said, decentralization's ability to reduce commute times is theoretical at best. In the real world, people who live in a suburb don't work in that suburb because it just doesn't make sense to pick up and relocated every 5 years when your job changes. I'll reiterate my personal example: less than 10% of the people who worked at my previous job in Markham lived in Markham. Jobs in the suburbs do not reduce commute distances for people living in the suburbs.

It still reduced commute for 10% of Markhamers. If it was Toronto, it would 0%. Just common sense really. What is more likely to be closer for the suburbanite: a downtown location, or a suburban location?

 

[lead82]

This is currently how our GO train system works for all those folks working in the Financial sector downtown. Trains run from suburbs, pick up people along the way and drops everyone off at Union. This is centralization and is what Toronto has. The problem we have is not decentralization but that the outer office areas are designed for the car and not for transit. If Markham's office districts like Warden/7 or Richmond Hill's Beaver Creek area looked more like North York centre in terms of focused along one major artery it would be easy to build a rail transit line say along Highway 7 and get people out of their cars. 5% modal split is pitiful but fairly normal in the suburbs. The reason Toronto gets around 30% split is due to the built up nature and increased density.

Thankfully, York Region is starting to get this by focusing it's new developments along Highway 7 and improving transit along it. This will help to boost VIVA and hopefully once the ROW's are in place, VIVA will be a fantastic system for York.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

This is currently how our GO train system works for all those folks working in the Financial sector downtown. Trains run from suburbs, pick up people along the way and drops everyone off at Union. This is centralization and is what Toronto has. The problem we have is not decentralization but that the outer office areas are designed for the car and not for transit. If Markham's office districts like Warden/7 or Richmond Hill's Beaver Creek area looked more like North York centre in terms of focused along one major artery it would be easy to build a rail transit line say along Highway 7 and get people out of their cars. 5% modal split is pitiful but fairly normal in the suburbs. The reason Toronto gets around 30% split is due to the built up nature and increased density.

Thankfully, York Region is starting to get this by focusing it's new developments along Highway 7 and improving transit along it. This will help to boost VIVA and hopefully once the ROW's are in place, VIVA will be a fantastic system for York.

I was just about to say something to the same effect. Decentralization is good but you need a transit network that serves the nodal modal. Right now all transit from each node lead to the primary node (DT Toronto), there needs to be transit connections between each node.

 

[archanfel]

People will continue to drive because of our cheap gasoline. However, it will not last. When the price starts to really go up, after the recession, the price of gasoline will go up and driving your own car, to get bread or a lottery ticket, will go from expensive to very, very expensive.

From www.steelguru.com is a report that Chinese imports of Saudi oil would have increased 19% by the end of 2010. Increase the demand, the higher the price.

Unfortunately, public transit is exceedingly expensive for short trips, not to mention between cities. I doubt gas price will ever reach $50/liter. By then, electric cars would become common place.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I was just about to say something to the same effect. Decentralization is good but you need a transit network that serves the nodal modal. Right now all transit from each node lead to the primary node (DT Toronto), there needs to be transit connections between each node.

Basically. But I'd say that a decentralized city with a transit focus would be much better than a centralized one.

That also means that the decentralized model is still salvageable. Basically all you have to do is increase density at employment centres and string them together with transit. Given Toronto's opportune situation to do this with all the growth we have, that's why it's really important to just cut sprawl off at the head.

 

[Glen]

The difficulty in providing public transit in distributed nodes is the economics. New York will always be able to have higher transit utilization and cost effectiveness than LA, despite having a lower population density. Capital costs being what they are, makes the cost of providing service in LA to generate the same ridership rate as NY unfeasible. NY has a common focus for at least one end of the trip, Manhattan. For Public transit to be cost effective, at least one end of the origin : destination equation must have sufficient density and the other within reasonable proximity. Usually The necessity for predictable ToA means that employment density takes precedence.

 

[howl]

Very few transit systems are entirely centralized or entirely a grid system. They are almost always a hybrid of the two. Generally the higher-order services (commuter rail) are centralized and the lowest order services (buses in traffic) are grid-like as each system gets certain real benefits from each layout. The question of grid-vs-centralized really only related to how to design the middle-level services. Middle level services in this case are subways and LRT/BRT in dedicated lanes. For these services a centralized network will be more efficient for scheduling and getting large number of people to the most popular destinations, while a grid-like network will provide better service through-out the City and will give people more route options. In the Transit City plan the middle-level services are a hybrid with some lines running into and out of the core and other lines linking up secondary nodes in a radial or grid pattern around the outside. This allows the best of both worlds. One big centralized core surrounded by a series of secondary nodes.

 

[Chuck]

In the Transit City plan the middle-level services are a hybrid with some lines running into and out of the core and other lines linking up secondary nodes in a radial or grid pattern around the outside. This allows the best of both worlds. One big centralized core surrounded by a series of secondary nodes.

What Transit City line boosts capacity into the core? If one were to draw a box bounded by about Jane, Pape, and Eglinton, only one Transit City line would penetrate the box, mostly using existing infrastructure in the downtown portion.

 

[doady]

The difficulty in providing public transit in distributed nodes is the economics. New York will always be able to have higher transit utilization and cost effectiveness than LA, despite having a lower population density. Capital costs being what they are, makes the cost of providing service in LA to generate the same ridership rate as NY unfeasible. NY has a common focus for at least one end of the trip, Manhattan. For Public transit to be cost effective, at least one end of the origin : destination equation must have sufficient density and the other within reasonable proximity. Usually The necessity for predictable ToA means that employment density takes precedence.

90% of all trips in the New York City urban area are on the MTA New York City bus and subway, and the MTA bus, which all serve New York City proper only. And New York City proper has 4 times the population density as Los Angeles proper. So your claim that centralization is the key to the high transit ridership of the New York City area is ridiculous. Despite comprising over half of the urban area's population, the contribution of the suburbs of New York City to the overall transit ridership of the urban area is only around 10%, which is pathetic. Even if centralization has helped the suburbs of New York City attain higher transit ridership (and I'm not saying it has), it still contributes very little to transit ridership overall in the New York City area.

So the subject of whether of not NYC's suburbs have high transit ridership or not. Does Nassau County have higher ridership than Mississauga? Well, let's see: annual ridership of the Long Island Rail Road is 86 million, and Long Island bus is 30 million. Mississauga Transit has 45 million riders annually. Nassau County has twice the population of Mississauga. So even if we assume that 2/3 of LIRR ridership is in Nassau County, it is still lower ridership than Mississauga. And that's not even counting annual GO ridership within Mississauga of around 8 million per year. So has centralization in the New York City area resulted in better transit in its suburbs? Not really.

 

[lafard]

The difficulty in providing public transit in distributed nodes is the economics. New York will always be able to have higher transit utilization and cost effectiveness than LA, despite having a lower population density. Capital costs being what they are, makes the cost of providing service in LA to generate the same ridership rate as NY unfeasible. NY has a common focus for at least one end of the trip, Manhattan. For Public transit to be cost effective, at least one end of the origin : destination equation must have sufficient density and the other within reasonable proximity. Usually The necessity for predictable ToA means that employment density takes precedence.

This is exactly the problem in Toronto.

First, we have too many nodes. If we focussed development on two or three nodes then connecting them with transit might be feasible. When they're built out and self-sustaining then you move onto the next three. Unfortunately the fragmentary nature of the GTA means that every municipality has its own centre that it wants developed, and the 'secondary centres' would have to wait decades before it was their turn. Far longer than the political cycle and in fact often the lifetimes of those that plan it. Thus we have a multitude of nodes in various stages, all of which are competing with downtown and other nodes for development.

Vaughan Centre is the most prominent example of the "me too" nodalism. If York Region was well planned they would plan for ONE urban node, probably centred on Yonge street in Thornhill or southern Richmond Hill, which would over time become contiguous with North York centre. Simple, central, and with a bit of planning easily served with transit.

Focus all development on say York Region centre, Scarborough Centre, and Mississauga Centre. Link them to downtown and each other with radial high frequency transit downtown and establish some sort of perimeter rapid transit system that essentially parallels the 407. If development was focussed that would be enough for decades, and the perimeter transit would not only catch internodal traffic but also bring rapid transit closer to locals.

The other big problem we have is directly illustrated by the Sheppard Subway. We can see in it exactly that sort of intent in planning. Unfortunately thanks to a poor choice in technology and short-sighted polititians they ran out of money before getting halfway. Now we're left with an ineffective partial route that neither serves as an internodal route nor as a regional collector (ie, very little traffic diversion off Finch) where the time savings from using it are eaten up by the additional transfers, and the TTC has implemented an internodal express bus route that bypasses this rapid transit completely.

 

[Second_in_pie]

This is exactly the problem in Toronto.

First, we have too many nodes. If we focussed development on two or three nodes then connecting them with transit might be feasible. When they're built out and self-sustaining then you move onto the next three. Unfortunately the fragmentary nature of the GTA means that every municipality has its own centre that it wants developed, and the 'secondary centres' would have to wait decades before it was their turn. Far longer than the political cycle and in fact often the lifetimes of those that plan it. Thus we have a multitude of nodes in various stages, all of which are competing with downtown and other nodes for development.

Vaughan Centre is the most prominent example of the "me too" nodalism. If York Region was well planned they would plan for ONE urban node, probably centred on Yonge street in Thornhill or southern Richmond Hill, which would over time become contiguous with North York centre. Simple, central, and with a bit of planning easily served with transit.

Focus all development on say York Region centre, Scarborough Centre, and Mississauga Centre. Link them to downtown and each other with radial high frequency transit downtown and establish some sort of perimeter rapid transit system that essentially parallels the 407. If development was focussed that would be enough for decades, and the perimeter transit would not only catch internodal traffic but also bring rapid transit closer to locals.

The other big problem we have is directly illustrated by the Sheppard Subway. We can see in it exactly that sort of intent in planning. Unfortunately thanks to a poor choice in technology and short-sighted polititians they ran out of money before getting halfway. Now we're left with an ineffective partial route that neither serves as an internodal route nor as a regional collector (ie, very little traffic diversion off Finch) where the time savings from using it are eaten up by the additional transfers, and the TTC has implemented an internodal express bus route that bypasses this rapid transit completely.

But is there really a problem with needing too many connections? If you're saying our major transportation corridors should just be between downtown, North York, STC, and MCC, how will that serve a spread out population of 6 million, let alone a possible future population of say 10 million?

Take a look at London, Paris, New York, or Mexico City. Those places all have a very high density of higher order transit, whether it be Metro, LRT, or Regional Rail. Would it not make sense for Toronto, if we aspire to have that kind of transit network, to provide the blueprint for it by laying out points on a map to connect with transit?
And, on top of that, if we have a larger number of smaller "downtowns," that puts a lot more people close to good transit and an urban centre where they can shop or socialize, taking the focus away from big box plazas and suburban shopping malls and towards real downtown areas.

 

[doady]

This is exactly the problem in Toronto.

First, we have too many nodes. If we focussed development on two or three nodes then connecting them with transit might be feasible.

Do you even know what a node is? Hurontario Street in Mississauga has at least FOUR nodes: Port Credit, Cooksville, MCC, and Hurontario-Eglinton. Is transit along Hurontario unfeasible?

When they're built out and self-sustaining then you move onto the next three. Unfortunately the fragmentary nature of the GTA means that every municipality has its own centre that it wants developed, and the 'secondary centres' would have to wait decades before it was their turn. Far longer than the political cycle and in fact often the lifetimes of those that plan it. Thus we have a multitude of nodes in various stages, all of which are competing with downtown and other nodes for development.

So Downtown Brampton would have more development if it weren't for places Downtown Toronot, MCC, NYCC, VCC? Really? That makes no sense.

Vaughan Centre is the most prominent example of the "me too" nodalism. If York Region was well planned they would plan for ONE urban node, probably centred on Yonge street in Thornhill or southern Richmond Hill, which would over time become contiguous with North York centre. Simple, central, and with a bit of planning easily served with transit.

I'm not really sure how this would improve transit as the Yonge corrdor already has 3-4 minute bus service and can already support subway extension.

Focus all development on say York Region centre, Scarborough Centre, and Mississauga Centre. Link them to downtown and each other with radial high frequency transit downtown and establish some sort of perimeter rapid transit system that essentially parallels the 407. If development was focussed that would be enough for decades, and the perimeter transit would not only catch internodal traffic but also bring rapid transit closer to locals.

You do realize that each of those locations already has rapid transit or rapid transit planned (407 Transitway, Mississauga Transitway, Scarborough RT, Hurontario/Main LRT, Yonge subway extension)? I'm not really sure what centralization is supposed to do, especially in Mississauga's case, where the main bus terminal is already way over capacity. Mississauga is a municipality that has promoted decentralization (lots of smaller nodes), and even so it is facingl the limits of centralization.

The other big problem we have is directly illustrated by the Sheppard Subway. We can see in it exactly that sort of intent in planning. Unfortunately thanks to a poor choice in technology and short-sighted polititians they ran out of money before getting halfway. Now we're left with an ineffective partial route that neither serves as an internodal route nor as a regional collector (ie, very little traffic diversion off Finch) where the time savings from using it are eaten up by the additional transfers, and the TTC has implemented an internodal express bus route that bypasses this rapid transit completely.

The Sheppard Subway already connect two nodes: NYCC and the Sheppard/Don Mills. And even if it didn't connect two nodes, it could hardly be called a failure considering its 47,000 per weekday ridership.