M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Density and Subways, revisited
December 30, 2011
By John McGrath
Read More: http://johnmcgrath.ca/2011/12/30/density-and-subways-revisited/
Since my last lengthy post went up, a number of defenders of subways in general, and the Sheppard line in particular, have raised some objections to my argument that Toronto’s inner suburbs (Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough) don’t have the required population densities to support subways. Some objections have been from the most vociferous of Mayor Rob Ford’s supporters, and haven’t really engaged in the facts in any way. Others have been more thoughtful and deserve a real response.
- Subways cost a lot of money, and they cost more—in inflation-adjusted terms—than they used to. When Toronto built the Bloor-Danforth line, it did so at the same time as it built the University line, joining Union to St. George and building the east-west subway line from Keele to Woodbine. I can’t find an exact number for the construction costs, but this site says the estimate was $200 million in 1960 dollars. Plug that in to our Bank of Canada inflation calculator, and that’s roughly $1.5 billion in 2011 dollars for about 15 kilometers of subway. If we had to build that today using the conservative $200 million that some optimists project for subways, it would be twice as expensive to build the Bloor-Danforth line in 2011 as it was in 1966. And if it went to the more likely $300 million per kilometer, we’d be talking $4.5 billion to tunnel under the downtown, or triple the cost of the original.
- My point is that Toronto mostly built its existing subway system when it was relatively cheap to do so, in the context of a rapdily-growing postwar economy, with all the fiscal largesse that implied. Neither of those two conditions is likely to repeat itself in the Toronto area soon. So in fact, the business case for subways in the suburbs in 2011 is even more difficult, even if they were as dense as the downtown core. And they’re not, they’re really really not, and they’re unlikely to get as dense as the core anytime soon. Why? Because despite nominal commitments, this city is very hostile to density.
- So for example, it’s true that there’s a Sheppard Avenue secondary plan that allows mixed-use density along parts of Sheppard. It’s also true that the same plan forces buildings to be set back from the sidewalk in case the city decides it wants to add a seventh (!) lane to Sheppard. (That alone should make subway advocates question how serious the city is about encouraging transit.) But the building heights envisioned in these plans are still laughably small (in the 5-7 storey range) but more importantly, the secondary plan disappears once you go any distance off Sheppard.
- Zoning systems were invented to put the brakes on development, and Toronto’s does it very well. The long and short of it is that, as currently structured, it would be illegal to add the density subways require along the Sheppard corridor. Ah, but developers can appeal the official plan and zoning, right? Of course they can. But let’s be clear about what this is: the city will, if a developer pays enough money and drags the city to the OMB, and wins, allow density to increase. There are many words for this system, but “density-friendly†isn’t one of them. So yes, the system as structured is hostile to density. It’s intended to be.
- Sheppard is unlikely to support enough condo towers, especially at the 7-storey maximum councillors prefer, to make the subway a winning proposition. But that’s actually not a deal-breaker, because the far, far better way to add density to the area is not to build a canyon of condo towers but to intensify the much larger area of residential streets north and sourth of Sheppard. This is a real bonanza: just by allowing three-storey townhomes, or semi-detached duplexes, density could be added cheaply, quickly, and without radically altering the nature of a suburban residential street.
- It’s not even a suburb story, which shows that this is a city-wide problem, not at all an issue of narrow-minded suburbanites: a developer finds two homes north of St. Clair that have unusually deep back yards. He buys the lots, and wants to turn it in to a row of 18, three-storey townhouses. The area is zoned to allow townhouses, so there’s no problem, right? Wrong. City staff are concerned that the building style doesn’t conform with the existing neighbourhood of a) two-storey semi-detached homes and b) five-storey apartment buildings. Also, the fact that the townhouses won’t face on to Winona street is an issue. From the city’s perspective, the only acceptable development is to.. replace the buildings with exactly the same kind of building.
- When the TTC talks about the density needed to sustain subways, they don’t talk about people per hectare—they talk about people and/or jobs per hectare. What planners understand is that if you’re going to balance a transit system (that is, if it’s not just going to be full trains running east, and empty trains running west) you need to have a balance of people and employment spread through the region. The TTC, according to Steve Munro (who would know, after all) uses a rule of thumb of 100 people and/or jobs per hectare to support subways, which is an appealingly round number.
- Now, it’s possible this will change. It’s possible that the city will, over the objections of residents on the cul-de-sacs north of Sheppard, allow developers to come in and build townhouses and walk-up apartments. And were it to happen that area could attract a lot of business, adding for the business case for more mixed-use along Sheppard. These things are all possible. I remain skeptical that they will actually happen. The prospects in other corridors in the suburbs (like Finch) are even more bleak.
- So we’re left with: subways in Toronto’s suburbs can’t pay their way currently, are unlikely to do so in the medium-term future, and other levels of governments are unlikely to help. (Except in small, incremental ways.) The city could choose to support them with a massive tax increase, but neither voters nor politicians seem in the mood. None of this argument, by the way, is because I’m personally opposed to Rob Ford’s politics. I’m just as opposed to the Spadina extension, but Dalton McGuinty didn’t ask my opinion. What I’ve tried to do, in this post and the last, is show that there simply isn’t the business case for subways in the ‘burbs and in many ways there cannot be one, unless Toronto’s politics change radically.
.....
December 30, 2011
By John McGrath
Read More: http://johnmcgrath.ca/2011/12/30/density-and-subways-revisited/
Since my last lengthy post went up, a number of defenders of subways in general, and the Sheppard line in particular, have raised some objections to my argument that Toronto’s inner suburbs (Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough) don’t have the required population densities to support subways. Some objections have been from the most vociferous of Mayor Rob Ford’s supporters, and haven’t really engaged in the facts in any way. Others have been more thoughtful and deserve a real response.
- Subways cost a lot of money, and they cost more—in inflation-adjusted terms—than they used to. When Toronto built the Bloor-Danforth line, it did so at the same time as it built the University line, joining Union to St. George and building the east-west subway line from Keele to Woodbine. I can’t find an exact number for the construction costs, but this site says the estimate was $200 million in 1960 dollars. Plug that in to our Bank of Canada inflation calculator, and that’s roughly $1.5 billion in 2011 dollars for about 15 kilometers of subway. If we had to build that today using the conservative $200 million that some optimists project for subways, it would be twice as expensive to build the Bloor-Danforth line in 2011 as it was in 1966. And if it went to the more likely $300 million per kilometer, we’d be talking $4.5 billion to tunnel under the downtown, or triple the cost of the original.
- My point is that Toronto mostly built its existing subway system when it was relatively cheap to do so, in the context of a rapdily-growing postwar economy, with all the fiscal largesse that implied. Neither of those two conditions is likely to repeat itself in the Toronto area soon. So in fact, the business case for subways in the suburbs in 2011 is even more difficult, even if they were as dense as the downtown core. And they’re not, they’re really really not, and they’re unlikely to get as dense as the core anytime soon. Why? Because despite nominal commitments, this city is very hostile to density.
- So for example, it’s true that there’s a Sheppard Avenue secondary plan that allows mixed-use density along parts of Sheppard. It’s also true that the same plan forces buildings to be set back from the sidewalk in case the city decides it wants to add a seventh (!) lane to Sheppard. (That alone should make subway advocates question how serious the city is about encouraging transit.) But the building heights envisioned in these plans are still laughably small (in the 5-7 storey range) but more importantly, the secondary plan disappears once you go any distance off Sheppard.
- Zoning systems were invented to put the brakes on development, and Toronto’s does it very well. The long and short of it is that, as currently structured, it would be illegal to add the density subways require along the Sheppard corridor. Ah, but developers can appeal the official plan and zoning, right? Of course they can. But let’s be clear about what this is: the city will, if a developer pays enough money and drags the city to the OMB, and wins, allow density to increase. There are many words for this system, but “density-friendly†isn’t one of them. So yes, the system as structured is hostile to density. It’s intended to be.
- Sheppard is unlikely to support enough condo towers, especially at the 7-storey maximum councillors prefer, to make the subway a winning proposition. But that’s actually not a deal-breaker, because the far, far better way to add density to the area is not to build a canyon of condo towers but to intensify the much larger area of residential streets north and sourth of Sheppard. This is a real bonanza: just by allowing three-storey townhomes, or semi-detached duplexes, density could be added cheaply, quickly, and without radically altering the nature of a suburban residential street.
- It’s not even a suburb story, which shows that this is a city-wide problem, not at all an issue of narrow-minded suburbanites: a developer finds two homes north of St. Clair that have unusually deep back yards. He buys the lots, and wants to turn it in to a row of 18, three-storey townhouses. The area is zoned to allow townhouses, so there’s no problem, right? Wrong. City staff are concerned that the building style doesn’t conform with the existing neighbourhood of a) two-storey semi-detached homes and b) five-storey apartment buildings. Also, the fact that the townhouses won’t face on to Winona street is an issue. From the city’s perspective, the only acceptable development is to.. replace the buildings with exactly the same kind of building.
- When the TTC talks about the density needed to sustain subways, they don’t talk about people per hectare—they talk about people and/or jobs per hectare. What planners understand is that if you’re going to balance a transit system (that is, if it’s not just going to be full trains running east, and empty trains running west) you need to have a balance of people and employment spread through the region. The TTC, according to Steve Munro (who would know, after all) uses a rule of thumb of 100 people and/or jobs per hectare to support subways, which is an appealingly round number.
- Now, it’s possible this will change. It’s possible that the city will, over the objections of residents on the cul-de-sacs north of Sheppard, allow developers to come in and build townhouses and walk-up apartments. And were it to happen that area could attract a lot of business, adding for the business case for more mixed-use along Sheppard. These things are all possible. I remain skeptical that they will actually happen. The prospects in other corridors in the suburbs (like Finch) are even more bleak.
- So we’re left with: subways in Toronto’s suburbs can’t pay their way currently, are unlikely to do so in the medium-term future, and other levels of governments are unlikely to help. (Except in small, incremental ways.) The city could choose to support them with a massive tax increase, but neither voters nor politicians seem in the mood. None of this argument, by the way, is because I’m personally opposed to Rob Ford’s politics. I’m just as opposed to the Spadina extension, but Dalton McGuinty didn’t ask my opinion. What I’ve tried to do, in this post and the last, is show that there simply isn’t the business case for subways in the ‘burbs and in many ways there cannot be one, unless Toronto’s politics change radically.
.....