[CDL.TO]

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/urbdesign/transitcities

Day 1: THURSDAY November 19
City-building and transit:
A panel discussion moderated by Matt Galloway (CBC Radio)
6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Panellists include:
Robert Cervero Professor of City Regional Planning: Director, University of California
Mariia Zimmerman, Vice President for Policy, Reconnecting America, Washington D.C.
Introduction by Mayor David Miller, City of Toronto
Location: City Hall, Council Chambers, 3rd floor - 100 Queen Street West, Toronto ON M5H 2N2 Cost: FREE.
This panel discussion is open to the public. Space is limited; please R.S.V.P to: protocol@toronto.ca

Day 2: FRIDAY November 20
CUI Breakfast Seminar and Lunch with Paul Goldberger, Architecture Critic for The New Yorker
8 a.m. - 2 p.m. Registrations and fees required. Visit canurb.com/events

Free Concurrent Sessions
2 p.m. – 5 p.m.
These sessions are open to the public and free. Space is limited; please R.S.V.P to: protocol@toronto.ca
SESSION A
Design and Built Form: Integration of planning and infrastructure along the right-of-way
SESSION B
Implementation/Making it Happen: Successful business case studies
SESSION C
Public Awareness: Consultation Methodology
Locations:
The Church of the Redeemer 162 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1M4
The Four Seasons Hotel 21 Avenue Road, Toronto Ontario M5R 2G1

 

[JasonParis]

Cool, I've just registered!

 

[CDL.TO]

A quick reminder that this event is tomorrow. I'm planning to go.

 

[JasonParis]

Double-booked myself and couldn't attend tonight. How was it?

 

[sixrings]

I went and here are my thoughts. The main selling point of LRt (and I dont think any one last night pretended that it would be subway like speeds, infact compared it more to a streetcar system) is that where ever they are placed properly in other cities they manage to transform the area. Subways may spur highrise development directly over stops but LRT builds out linear. So instead of a few clusters we would hve more of a London medium height density in the lrt areas. Also the LRT would cause these areas to become redeveloped and almost become "destinations" when new retail and entertainment open. IT all sounds so nice. An asthetically pleasing city. Unfrotunately I cant see how shepperd and victoria park will ever become a destination yet alone shepperd and morningside. Also Paul Bedford challenged Adam G that if we were going to spend this type of money to do it right, not like the spadina line which doesnt use transit pirority at lights. HE also mentioned St clair about how they spent all this money to build a streetcar system but didnt make the sidewalks bigger so people couldnt enjoy the new "destination." I think the main opposition last night was not if it was the right thing to do it was will it be done right or will Cars still take priority over transit and pedestrians. It was actually a good evening. We saw other cities how they are being transformed through LRT and our new streetcar b-222. What I got from the end of the evening though was that this plan which costs upwards to 50 billion dollars more like 100 billion when you add in opperating cost should really be double the size if we wanted to create a TRUE NETWORK. TC 2 should be being built at the same time as TC1 but we dont have enough money. Were making up for notr doing anything for the last 25 yrs and trying to make sure we build for the next 25 yrs. And again no money. Im scared our next mayor is going to promise tax cuts and reduce service not increase it.

WHERE IN THE WORLD WAS THE SAVE OUR SUBWAY GROUP. They should have been there wearing T shirts with print ad. I agree with whoever on the other thread. You are moving along too slow. If you dont get your propaganda out sooner then late you are going to lose anychance of a fight.

I wish SAVE OUR SUBWAYS would focus simply on a DRL, queen street line and a STC extension. These are the 3 things that all make the most sense doesnt kill anything TC suggests. Really just adds to it.

 

[JasonParis]

I'm moving this to Transportation & Infrastructure as it will likely spur more discussion there.

 

[Anth]

It would be nice if transit planning here actually focused on moving people efficiently.

 

[sixrings]

They did talk about transit efficent. Apparently the new lrts are suppose to be so frequent it will only be 5 minute waits anytime. Plus at street level makes transfer times easier. They did say though indirectly that LRT is best used for traveliing between 5-15 kms. So I guess what has to be asked is unless scarborough or rexdale gets significantly redeveloped or regional rail at a affordable price the people in theses neighbourhoods will still remain issolated from the richer parts of the city.

I think there true answer is that by building LRt we will build sustainable higher density neighbourhoods which will as a result curb spral, which will help transit and commuting in the city. Again it seemed that the plan was good in theory who knows how it will be executed in reality and that a true network would have more then 7 additional lines. We should be aiming for something more along 20 lines.

 

[JasonParis]

In other words, LRT's "may" help urbanize currently suburban parts of the cities, but won't do much to improve travel times into the central city.

 

[Anth]

It's incredibly frustrating that what is normally the domain of qualified technocrats and engineers anywhere else in the world has been commandeered by dilettante pie-in-the-sky idealists who openly admit their transit policy goals scarcely include improved travel times.

How is this acceptable to anyone? Something will have to give, but hopefully before we waste billions of dollars. Toronto squanders so much of its vast potential it's depressing.

 

[sixrings]

Truthfully I dont think we can blame current city hall for todays mess. Todays mess is due to the fact that yesterdays thought and still for a lot of people is that the ideal city is a city core with a sprawled out mc mansion suburb. The problem is that Subways can never be financially viable in these low denisty neighbourhoods. Subway advocates love to look to NEw york or Europe for transit ideas but then they forget that the only reason their transit is sustainable is because they live in denser neighbourhoods. TC if it actually makes denser neighbourhoods that people are less likely to leave but actually live in would be asuccess. We cant continue to sprawl out and out and out. Soon Toronto will be one huge city from hamilton to Kingston and all the way north to Barrie. If we let that happen there will NEVER be sufficent transit. PPL who really want to be transit advocates need to make comprimises. They need to say to themselves Im okay with not living in a house with 4 bedrooms and a washroom on every floor. I dont need a double car garage. What I need is a neighbourhood.

 

[junctionist]

The problem is that Subways can never be financially viable in these low denisty neighbourhoods. Subway advocates love to look to NEw york or Europe for transit ideas but then they forget that the only reason their transit is sustainable is because they live in denser neighbourhoods.

I think you don't even see what Toronto's suburbs look like. They're filled not just with McMansions, but high rises. We are second in North America in terms of high rises, with many in the suburbs. Yesterday's ideal suburb was to have a mix of housing styles and higher density and to a degree that was achieved. These help to make at least one crosstown subway viable. People get on buses and in the future connect from GO stations onto the subway to get to urban nodes, making it viable even if the street isn't lined with density. The subway can an unprecented high level of economic development.

There's nothing wrong with nodal rather than spaced out development. With the rise of New Urbanism, as valuable as some its tenets might be, there's this fantasy in vogue of recreating Queen Street in the suburbs. But where's the precedent? Which city has achieved recently this with on-street LRT? Why not follow the tried and true model seen on Yonge and Sheppard in North York.

This isn't referring to sixrings specifically who I quoted above, but there is a level of baseless idealism that is amazing among some LRT advocates. They talk of the mode spreading out development, but in many suburban areas Transit City is supposed to serve, there is land available at major intersections for intensification, and then the backyard fences of houses for several hundred metres along the arterial. I doubt those are going to be quickly redeveloped because suburban land values are generally high, the City hasn't encouraged neighbourhood clearance recently, and even if the land could be redeveloped, the developer would want to build more than three stories.

They say that it can work if there are fewer stops, priority signals, but this is unprecedented in Toronto. The TTC has consistently made concessions in their past projects to drivers and neighbourhood activists like with Spadina or St. Clair. These were dubbed initially as LRT projects, but were then compromised extensively. Maybe TC won't have that many compromises because of its emphasis on LRT from the beginning, but it's simply realistic to expect at least some concessions. With subway you know with a high degree of confidence what you're going to get. These are no longer the Harris years and there's no transit activist compromise inherent in spending at least $15 billion on LRT.

 

[sixrings]

For reference sake I lived at Midland and finch for 15 years of my life at Brimley and Lawrence another 5 years. I have worked in Jane and Finch the last few years. My in laws live in Sauga and i play in a basketball league in brampton. I DO NOT OWN A CAR. I transit everywhere. Most people think I am nuts.

I think from all the articles that have come out over the last couple years have all pointed to one thing INTENSIFICATIOn or density.. Whether thats because of congestion, because of rising oil costs, environmental, or whatever it seems this is the new tomorrow. One lady last night (cynthia) made an exceptional point. "we all go to europe and we love the little cafes and how pedestrian friendly it is and then we come home and we miss it and we realize that we might have messed up in our designing." Another designer who has lived here almost all his life talked about how his mom visits her home country every year and she is more happy because its a more social environment (a result of intensification)

Yes there are apartments in the suburbs. There were arround us when I grew up and they are still there today. Unfortunately there too far and few between. They also typically are made up of lower income neighbourhoods, where as the houses usually are made up of the higher incomes. Intensification and density ideally would change the way we look at density. BEsides downtown toronto nYC MCC most people look down on density. In the future people will want to live in these neighbourhoods.

The Lrts goal is to change our city not just by getting people from point A to point B but to help them enjoy the places they live as well. I was sceptical but I think they made good points last night.

 

[lead82]

sixrings, what they are proposing is a fundamental shift in our way of life. Personally I think it is for the better, but many will fight the demise of the american dream of a house and a backyard.

 

[kettal]

In other words, LRT's "may" help urbanize currently suburban parts of the cities, but won't do much to improve travel times into the central city.

LRT's, or even subways, will never be the best option to get suburban travellers into the central city. That's a job for regional rail.

Urbanizing suburban corridors should lead to people travelling to their local main street instead of downtown for work or play.