News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 30K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.9K     0 

kamira51

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
498
Reaction score
717
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.
Speaking of NDP, have they posted their platform yet?
 

Translude15

Frank the Tank
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
713
Reaction score
378
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.
To add to this cultural component reflecting the urban (transit) vs suburban (auto-centric) divide, the ever-present ideal of home ownership is absolutely perpetuated by the lived experiences of many of the GTA's numerous ethnic groups. Many of the SW Europeans who first immigrated to Toronto in the mid-20th century, ranging from Portuguese, Italians and Greeks all lived in dense, multi-tenant housing within the inner portion of Old Toronto, or depending on the decade, apartment buildings. My British family who immigrated here in the late 50's - early 70's all lived in apartment buildings throughout western Toronto, mostly Rexdale until the majority flocked to single-family homes. My 91 year old aunt still lives in the same apartment they moved into in the 60's at Dixon-Islington but she's the only one living in a non-SF dwelling. Many of the Asian and SE Asian communities who immigrated here in the 80's - present all started off in similar housing arrangements as well.

IMO these lived experiences perpetuate the ideal and insatiable desire for SFH ownership because it's perceived as more "civil" and peaceful relative to densely populated condo clusters or apartments. That never-ending pursuit of suburban style home ownership has been passed along to the 2nd and 3rd generations of a multitude of ethnic groups in the GTA for decades and frankly, it highlights that very real disparity between single family dwellings and condo/apartment living that leads to this pursuit. It also highlights the very necessary need for the "Missing Middle" medium density housing stock in the region which offers more space and privacy than massive apartment complexes and condo projects. Time for government to stop pandering to developers and investors and start focusing on the needs of people and those with families.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,858
Reaction score
2,850
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

I think multiple factors are at play. The high cost of transit construction in Toronto is certainly a factor, and deserves its own analysis. To what extent is it technical (soil conditions) vs labour market (salaries of workers are high compared to other places) vs political (opposition to elevated), etc.

The lesser willingness to rely on the government in North America plays a role, too. I noticed that it is hard to find a place in Europe, even if it is a small town, where relying on transit for mobility is totally impractical and everyone needs a car. Small towns have usable local bus systems and many connected to passenger rail lines. In Canada, it was a common situation until recently, pretty much everywhere outside the 15 or so biggest cities; even in the satellite regions like York or Durham. It used to be even worse in the U.S., some relatively big cities having very limited transit options, although they are making big improvements lately.

As of delays due to the government changes and shifting transit plans, I heard / read about such events in many jurisdictions and my gut feeling is that we aren't unique. But I have no stats.
 

Deadpool X

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
628
Reaction score
1,056
There have been times that rapid transit stations have been built BEFORE development came in. Happened in New York City, happening now in China. High density goes in around the stations.
If you are referring to Line 7's extension to Hudson Yards then that was 1 or 2 stop extension (which is a very small length) in an already dense area (Manhattan). Also it was being extended for a super dense office cluster which was also the largest real estate project in the US and I doubt we have any comparable for that. I don't think even Bay and King have that much density of office workers.

Do you have any comparable in Canada where you would like to have the transit line built before people arrive? Extension to VMC would be an example where subway line arrived long before density (may be 10-20 years earlier). Would you suggest building transit lines in Markham and Milton and wait for people and businesses to come?

I won't even talk about China where they have built ghost cities and subway lines to connect them. It's a different world that doesn't run on commercial reasons.
 

DirectionNorth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
750
Reaction score
1,475
If you are referring to Line 7's extension to Hudson Yards then that was 1 or 2 stop extension (which is a very small length) in an already dense area (Manhattan). Also it was being extended for a super dense office cluster which was also the largest real estate project in the US and I doubt we have any comparable for that. I don't think even Bay and King have that much density of office workers.
The boroughs (Brooklyn and the Bronx especially, Queens to a lesser extent) are basically a giant glob of century old TOD.
Do you have any comparable in Canada where you would like to have the transit line built before people arrive? Extension to VMC would be an example where subway line arrived long before density (may be 10-20 years earlier). Would you suggest building transit lines in Markham and Milton and wait for people and businesses to come?

I won't even talk about China where they have built ghost cities and subway lines to connect them. It's a different world that doesn't run on commercial reasons.
It works, but is probably not ideal for Toronto suburbs.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,143
City:
Toronto
If you are referring to Line 7's extension to Hudson Yards then that was 1 or 2 stop extension (which is a very small length) in an already dense area (Manhattan). Also it was being extended for a super dense office cluster which was also the largest real estate project in the US and I doubt we have any comparable for that. I don't think even Bay and King have that much density of office workers.

Do you have any comparable in Canada where you would like to have the transit line built before people arrive? Extension to VMC would be an example where subway line arrived long before density (may be 10-20 years earlier). Would you suggest building transit lines in Markham and Milton and wait for people and businesses to come?

I won't even talk about China where they have built ghost cities and subway lines to connect them. It's a different world that doesn't run on commercial reasons.
More like in 1917 in New York City (Queens)...

02692c3d-629e-41f7-ab12-8485f8fe1af7_1x.jpg
From link.

Even prior to its opening in 1915, the Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) Flushing line, originally known as the Corona line and familiar to most as the 7 train, sparked a real estate boom that transformed the mostly rural areas of Queens into vibrant neighborhoods with diverse communities. 7 Train: Minutes to Midtown traces more than 100 years of history of the first subway line in Queens – from its beginnings at the Steinway Tunnel to the most recent station, 34th Street – Hudson Yards. Along the way, photographs and objects from the Museum’s extensive collection celebrate the line’s contributions to the diversity of Queens, as well as its key role in the economic and social development of New York City.
 

APTA-2048

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
1,306
Reaction score
1,684
City:
Toronto
If you are referring to Line 7's extension to Hudson Yards then that was 1 or 2 stop extension (which is a very small length) in an already dense area (Manhattan). Also it was being extended for a super dense office cluster which was also the largest real estate project in the US and I doubt we have any comparable for that. I don't think even Bay and King have that much density of office workers.
I think he's referring to a different part of the IRT Flushing Line.

This is what surrounded the subway in Sunnyside, Queens 100 or so years ago.

flushing-rawson.jpg
 

Deadpool X

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
628
Reaction score
1,056
Suggesting examples from a century ago is not right. Labour used to be dirt cheap at that time. Toronto also built a lot of subways in 1950s and 60s despite being much smaller than today. Same with Montreal. You also know how difficult it is to build subways in NYC today. Should we talk about Second Avenue subway?
 
Last edited:

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
1,351
City:
Vancouver
Do you have any comparable in Canada where you would like to have the transit line built before people arrive? Extension to VMC would be an example where subway line arrived long before density (may be 10-20 years earlier). Would you suggest building transit lines in Markham and Milton and wait for people and businesses to come?
The Millennium Line in Burnaby is the classic example.
It was built as a "growth-shaping" line through two of Burnaby's future Town Centres (Brentwood and Lougheed).
The Expo Line through Burnaby's Metrtown is also an example.

Brentwood area circa 2001 when Millennium Line was just built:


Gilmore Station (background), Brentwood Town Centre Station (centre) & Holdom Station (foreground) circa 2020:


Lougheed Town Centre Station (right cluster) and Burquitlam Station (left cluster).

Klazu;9349663 said:

Lougheed Town Centre Station (foreground) and Burquitlam Station (background).

vanman;9461968 said:
 
Last edited:

toronto647

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
1,000
If you are referring to Line 7's extension to Hudson Yards then that was 1 or 2 stop extension (which is a very small length) in an already dense area (Manhattan). Also it was being extended for a super dense office cluster which was also the largest real estate project in the US and I doubt we have any comparable for that. I don't think even Bay and King have that much density of office workers.

Do you have any comparable in Canada where you would like to have the transit line built before people arrive? Extension to VMC would be an example where subway line arrived long before density (may be 10-20 years earlier). Would you suggest building transit lines in Markham and Milton and wait for people and businesses to come?

I won't even talk about China where they have built ghost cities and subway lines to connect them. It's a different world that doesn't run on commercial reasons.
Regarding your comparable point we can see Eglinton LRT elevated portion bringing in a significant level of development much more than the Millennium Line in Burnaby that another poster commented. This will likely be what the other lines will in theory try to copy or use as a baseline.
 

Deadpool X

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
628
Reaction score
1,056
Regarding your comparable point we can see Eglinton LRT elevated portion bringing in a significant level of development much more than the Millennium Line in Burnaby that another poster commented. This will likely be what the other lines will in theory try to copy or use as a baseline.
I am not sure about Millenium line but I would not consider Eglinton West LRT (or for that matter any other line in Toronto) as a line that preceded development in the context we were discussing (or may be I got it wrong). The area it is going through is already a mature area and the line is supposed to serve this existing population. Any new dense development that happens because of this line is bonus.

Take Yonge line for example. It was built in 1950s but the area along it keeps getting denser and a big chunk of that density arrived in 21st century. So we can't say Yonge line came before development (even though most of the development happened after it) because there was already good enough development when it was built.

If you are instead suggesting Eglinton West line is being built more for future density than current, then I am not sure about that. I don't see huge amount of density coming in that area in future. I don't see doubling of population in its catchment area.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,143
City:
Toronto
Kipling station, in what was then the Borough of Etobicoke, officially opened on November 21, 1980. Taking more than 40 years, but only now is the Six Points interchange getting developed for high density. Could have been earlier, if it was for the "want-to-be" expressway intersection that was there.

Six-Points-Aerial-46-scaled.jpg

Six-Points-Aerial-01-scaled.jpg


From link.
 

toronto647

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
1,000
I am not sure about Millenium line but I would not consider Eglinton West LRT (or for that matter any other line in Toronto) as a line that preceded development in the context we were discussing (or may be I got it wrong). The area it is going through is already a mature area and the line is supposed to serve this existing population. Any new dense development that happens because of this line is bonus.

Take Yonge line for example. It was built in 1950s but the area along it keeps getting denser and a big chunk of that density arrived in 21st century. So we can't say Yonge line came before development (even though most of the development happened after it) because there was already good enough development when it was built.

If you are instead suggesting Eglinton West line is being built more for future density than current, then I am not sure about that. I don't see huge amount of density coming in that area in future. I don't see doubling of population in its catchment area.
I am referring to the elevated portion of the EG LRT East of Leslie or perhaps Vic Park to be more specific. There is nothing there except for industrial land and shopping strips with some very low rises. This reminds me of the Millineium line in Burnaby. Burnaby was sort of EG LRT east of Vic Park with not much there.
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
816
Reaction score
2,064
City:
Toronto
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.
Generally, the whole "Employment Lands" thing is wildly overstated by the City of Toronto. For example, the idea that the Federal Government had to take the City to the LPAT because the City were insisting on keeping DOWNSVIEW as "Employment Lands" is almost embarrassing...

On EAST HARBOUR, the "Soap Factory" business is never coming back --- and seeing EAST HARBOUR become a mixed-use area like SOUTH CORE near the Scotiabank Arena and Union Station makes sense... just as it does with most of the Portlands / Villier's Island next to EAST HARBOUR.

1640973756002.png


LINK - http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.CC28.10
 

Top