[p_xavier]

People criticize the REM de l'Est proposal but that was what was needed in Canada, cost optimization planning. The NIMBYs will make the budget balloon, just look next year. At least Metrolinx did some cost cutting measures compared to the TTC.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

People criticize the REM de l'Est proposal but that was what was needed in Canada, cost optimization planning. The NIMBYs will make the budget balloon, just look next year. At least Metrolinx did some cost cutting measures compared to the TTC.

Eglinton West (nevermind SSE) rings a bell? The most expensive options were chosen by the current provincial government for a reason. The problem is that transit planning has been weaponized into a political wedge issue - and the provincial government had been (and still is) the party to some of the worst of it.

AoD

 

[Deadpool X]

Your post referred to countries, not cities. But sure, let's look at cities/metro areas. Urban areas are probably the best apples to apples comparison between countries. The urban area (population centre in StatsCan terms) population density of Toronto was 3028/sq km in the last census. Here's how that compares to some other large urban areas:

Milan 2800
Berlin 2900
Rhine/Ruhr 2287
Rotterdam 2700
Moscow 3009
Amsterdam 3662
Frankfurt 2939

Even Paris is in the 3000s and Madrid is in the 4000s. Both denser than Toronto but not by so much to explain how bad our rapid transit system is and how expensive it is to build here. Clearly there are other explanations.

We have this notion in Canada that major European cities are significantly denser than our own largest cities. They're not.

The way urban areas are defined differs from place to place. Even for Toronto, you can use GTA or GGH and those two will give you two very different densities. Even GTA has a lot of countryside and the actual urban area is much smaller.

The contiguous urban areas of European cities have higher densities than the contiguous urban areas of North American cities. How would you explain having detached homes less than 5 km from the city centre makes Toronto as dense as many European cities? Is there an underground population that we are not aware of? How many times do we talk about sprawl in Toronto vs European cities?

 

[Mercenary]

There is no question that European cities are way more denser than North American ones. The only place in North America that can be compared to European cities in terms of density is Manhattan.

 

[Rainforest]

There is no question that European cities are way more denser than North American ones. The only place in North America that can be compared to European cities in terms of density is Manhattan.

Hardly any district in any European city has density comparable to Manhattan.

 

[MisterF]

The way urban areas are defined differs from place to place. Even for Toronto, you can use GTA or GGH and those two will give you two very different densities. Even GTA has a lot of countryside and the actual urban area is much smaller.

Okay? I used urban areas, not GTA or some other measurement. So let's put that straw man aside. As I said, urban areas are the most comparable metric you can use between countries. Toronto's urban area is limited to built up areas just as they are in Europe. It also excludes Hamilton and Oshawa.

The contiguous urban areas of European cities have higher densities than the contiguous urban areas of North American cities. How would you explain having detached homes less than 5 km from the city centre makes Toronto as dense as many European cities? Is there an underground population that we are not aware of? How many times do we talk about sprawl in Toronto vs European cities?

I explain it by the fact that Toronto has high rise density that European cities don't have. You can doubt it if you want, but the fact remains that the urban area of Toronto is just as dense as many or even most of the major urban areas in Europe.

There is no question that European cities are way more denser than North American ones. The only place in North America that can be compared to European cities in terms of density is Manhattan.

The facts say otherwise.

 

[Rainforest]

The way urban areas are defined differs from place to place. Even for Toronto, you can use GTA or GGH and those two will give you two very different densities. Even GTA has a lot of countryside and the actual urban area is much smaller.

The contiguous urban areas of European cities have higher densities than the contiguous urban areas of North American cities. How would you explain having detached homes less than 5 km from the city centre makes Toronto as dense as many European cities? Is there an underground population that we are not aware of? How many times do we talk about sprawl in Toronto vs European cities?

Large European cities tend to follow another model. Detached homes near the centre are rare, but a lot of the centre and surrounding areas are filled with midrise, 3-4 store buildings. Many of those buildings are historical and aren't up for replacement with highrises. Here in Toronto, you can find highrise clusters both in the centre and in the suburbs. In Europe, such clusters mostly exist in the suburbs.

For the viability of transit service, the overall density is the main factor that affects the number of available riders. Hence, we are not at a disadvantage due to demographic factors.

 

[Rainforest]

Your post referred to countries, not cities. But sure, let's look at cities/metro areas. Urban areas are probably the best apples to apples comparison between countries. The urban area (population centre in StatsCan terms) population density of Toronto was 3028/sq km in the last census. Here's how that compares to some other large urban areas:

Milan 2800
Berlin 2900
Rhine/Ruhr 2287
Rotterdam 2700
Moscow 3009
Amsterdam 3662
Frankfurt 2939

Even Paris is in the 3000s and Madrid is in the 4000s. Both denser than Toronto but not by so much to explain how bad our rapid transit system is and how expensive it is to build here. Clearly there are other explanations.

We have this notion in Canada that major European cities are significantly denser than our own largest cities. They're not.

The difference is cultural, rather than demographic. In both Europe and East Asia, people are more open to the idea of the government pooling together everyone's resources and constructing something for the public use. North America is more about individualism; even when we see the need to pull together our resources, we tend to do that outside the government framework.

Overall, either model has its advantages. But when it comes to public transit building, obviously the government-led model wins every time. Fortunately, our attitudes are changing. The latest round of transit expansion that began in the early 200x and still goes on, certainly will pull us forward.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The difference is cultural, rather than demographic. In both Europe and East Asia, people are more open to the idea of the government pooling together everyone's resources and constructing something for the public use. North America is more about individualism; even when we see the need to pull together our resources, we tend to do that outside the government framework.

Overall, either model has its advantages. But when it comes to public transit building, obviously the government-led model wins every time. Fortunately, our attitudes are changing. The latest round of transit expansion that began in the early 200x and still goes on, certainly will pull us forward.

Is that aspect the issue though? It isn't like government here wasn't able to pool the resources - it s that a) the high cost of what was chosen and b) the susceptibility of what's been proposed to changes of government/government priorities. Also some of the European examples cited also had a history of transit building being delayed (notably Amsterdam). More fundamentally perhaps it would be instructive to look specifically at the "transit constituency" of each jurisdiction and see how it compares and contrasts with the situation in North America and TO.

AoD

 

[officedweller]

So the Porsche dealership at Front & Parliament was expropriated for the Ontario Line.

They've relocated to Parliament and Lakeshore.

Pretty crazy because they just finished a $7M renovation on the place last year and now the whole building is just going t be demolished.

... and the NIMBYs aren't complaining?

 

[evandyk]

Oh, they are complaining vocally, led by Kristen Wong-Tam, who thinks that a forty storey building is too dense for a site with direct subway access, surrounded by other 30+ storey towers.

 

[HousingNowTO]

There's a lot of opportunity for Affordable-Housing within the 7,000+ residential units atop the ONTARIO LINE stations between Exhibition and East Harbour.

However, the specific numbers of Affordable-Housing units will require some kind of Federal-Provincial agreement - and it will be needed before the Province locks-in the MZO's for all of those stations in the next couple of months.

 

[Deadpool X]

The difference is cultural, rather than demographic. In both Europe and East Asia, people are more open to the idea of the government pooling together everyone's resources and constructing something for the public use. North America is more about individualism; even when we see the need to pull together our resources, we tend to do that outside the government framework.

Overall, either model has its advantages. But when it comes to public transit building, obviously the government-led model wins every time. Fortunately, our attitudes are changing. The latest round of transit expansion that began in the early 200x and still goes on, certainly will pull us forward.

Cultures develop because of some factors. Here car culture developed because cities were newer so they were planned in grid form with wider streets and ever wider highways. Gas is cheaper here as well. If given an option, people would like to have a single door to door ride in their own private space where they could listen to anything at any volume or talk about anything private. If we provide more services to drivers (like wider roads or cheaper gas), we are drawing traffic away from transit. I am not debating if that's right or wrong but saying that road infrastructure does compete with transit.

 

[asher__jo]

There's a lot of opportunity for Affordable-Housing within the 7,000+ residential units atop the ONTARIO LINE stations between Exhibition and East Harbour.

However, the specific numbers of Affordable-Housing units will require some kind of Federal-Provincial agreement - and it will be needed before the Province locks-in the MZO's for all of those stations in the next couple of months.
View attachment 372129

View attachment 372128

It will be interesting to see how this plays out at East Harbour, as the city had specifically zoned this strictly as employment lands. Of course the province has overruled this, but the city can stall on approving housing. I generally think a mixed use is preferable, but reserving space for employment is also critical to a city growing as fast as Toronto.

 

[daniel_kryz]

It's pretty obvious that proportional representation is a much more democratic and well-functioning system than first-past-the-post. If that's what you want, only the NDP wants to do that. Ontario Liberals have promised ranked ballots, but that won't cause much of a change in a party-system. Since no one is proposing to do away with parties, I think this is the best way to diversify the amount of parties, increase collaboration, and make transit planning work.
So... even if they're not perfect, vote NDP because a different electoral system would fundamentally change how our government works.

Besides... aren't we tired of the same two establishment parties going back and forth for the last >150 years?

More viable options to choose from = greater competition = better results.