Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[BMO]

It's definitely an idea. Toronto is clearly going to continue its high-rise construction boom. If you give developers specific places to go nuts, they'll do it. It's better to concentrate the really high density stuff to a few select locations, and then have the rest of the city open to mid-rise infill, etc.

I liek this thought...you know before, I used to have the mentality of wanting to place high density all over the place, but i've slowly been changing my mind, and think the city shoudl really focus on midrise and a mixture of residential types, e.i. detached housing mixed in with high-rise and mid-rise. Essentially if everywhere in Toronto could look liek the area between Eglinton and Davisvill, I'd be content with that.

 

[gweed123]

I liek this thought...you know before, I used to have the mentality of wanting to place high density all over the place, but i've slowly been changing my mind, and think the city shoudl really focus on midrise and a mixture of residential types, e.i. detached housing mixed in with high-rise and mid-rise. Essentially if everywhere in Toronto could look liek the area between Eglinton and Davisvill, I'd be content with that.

Ideally, I'd like to see high density (30+ storeys) at major nodes (City/Town Centres, subway stops, etc), mid-rise along arterials and "main streets" (6-15 storeys, with 15-30 in only select locations), with townhomes and semis in most other places. Certain places can be singles, but I'd like to see Beaches or Cornell style singles. Maximize the amount of people with transit at their doorstep, and even when they don't, have the lower density communities still have sufficient density to support a local bus route.

For a street like Eglinton for example, ideally I'd like to see 10 storeys midblock fronting onto the street, 5 storeys directly behind that, and then towns and semis behind that.

 

[BMO]

Ideally, I'd like to see high density (30+ storeys) at major nodes (City/Town Centres, subway stops, etc), mid-rise along arterials and "main streets" (6-15 storeys, with 15-30 in only select locations), with townhomes and semis in most other places. Certain places can be singles, but I'd like to see Beaches or Cornell style singles. Maximize the amount of people with transit at their doorstep, and even when they don't, have the lower density communities still have sufficient density to support a local bus route.

For a street like Eglinton for example, ideally I'd like to see 10 storeys midblock fronting onto the street, 5 storeys directly behind that, and then towns and semis behind that.

make those 10s buildings stepped buildings and you and I are on the same wavelength. If this approach was really emphasized at public consultations, I think projects like these would face substantially less opposition from locals worried about loosing their home to development. Considering on most major streets the buildings directly fronting the street are comemrcial or industrial, It's basically jsut a replacement of exisitng buildings with more efficient ones, and a slight increase in density right behind those.

 

[Asterix]

It's important to remember that all this increase in development does not happen in isolation. It's not just a matter of replacing a 1 - 2 story commercial/industrial/residential building with a 10, 20 or 40 story tower.

When you add that many more people to an area, there are other needs:
- increased water/sewer/gas/hyrdro infrastructure;
- unless all those new residents are going to be empty nesters, you might have to deal with several hundred new kids for the local schools - do they have the capacity?
- with several thousand new residents, how much capacity is there are on the local roads? Surely it's not realistic to think every last one of them will solely take the transit outside their door;
- what about the capacity of local places like community centres and parks? Will existing locals be pleased to be crowded out as the population doubles (or triples) without any new investment in these aspects?

Those things all come with a cost. Normally that cost is to be covered by development charges, but apparently that money is all being allocated to building the subway on Sheppard, so how are they paid for? Or do we just accept bursting schools and overloaded infrastructure?

 

[BMO]

It's important to remember that all this increase in development does not happen in isolation. It's not just a matter of replacing a 1 - 2 story commercial/industrial/residential building with a 10, 20 or 40 story tower.

When you add that many more people to an area, there are other needs:
- increased water/sewer/gas/hyrdro infrastructure;
- unless all those new residents are going to be empty nesters, you might have to deal with several hundred new kids for the local schools - do they have the capacity?
- with several thousand new residents, how much capacity is there are on the local roads? Surely it's not realistic to think every last one of them will solely take the transit outside their door;
- what about the capacity of local places like community centres and parks? Will existing locals be pleased to be crowded out as the population doubles (or triples) without any new investment in these aspects?

Those things all come with a cost. Normally that cost is to be covered by development charges, but apparently that money is all being allocated to building the subway on Sheppard, so how are they paid for? Or do we just accept bursting schools and overloaded infrastructure?

This is very true. But, say for instance, if these developments were put in place as a result of the transit, or vice-versa, aren't there policies in place to ensure the developers cover the cost of the infrastructure needed to support them? (not including schooling). I was under the impression that with the higher densities these development companies are bounded by agreements to put in public services like public parks, upgraded sewers, etc. Some clarification on this would be much appreciated.

 

[Asterix]

This is very true. But, say for instance, if these developments were put in place as a result of the transit, or vice-versa, aren't there policies in place to ensure the developers cover the cost of the infrastructure needed to support them? (not including schooling). I was under the impression that with the higher densities these development companies are bounded by agreements to put in public services like public parks, upgraded sewers, etc. Some clarification on this would be much appreciated.

Some developments, particularly large scale suburban ones, do require the developer to include something in the way of community amenities. I think few though would argue that they cover all that the development requires.

That's the primary purpose of the development fees, so that the municipality can provide the rest of the required infrastructure.

But apparently the plan is to divert those fees from both Eglinton and Sheppard to pay for the actual subway construction, not the infrastructure the development would require.

Is that sound civic planning that respects the taxpayer?

 

[toraerach]

- unless all those new residents are going to be empty nesters, you might have to deal with several hundred new kids for the local schools - do they have the capacity?

It depends on the neighbourhood, but in many parts of the city an influx of children could save under-capacity schools from closure.

 

[gweed123]

Some developments, particularly large scale suburban ones, do require the developer to include something in the way of community amenities. I think few though would argue that they cover all that the development requires.

That's the primary purpose of the development fees, so that the municipality can provide the rest of the required infrastructure.

But apparently the plan is to divert those fees from both Eglinton and Sheppard to pay for the actual subway construction, not the infrastructure the development would require.

Is that sound civic planning that respects the taxpayer?

Large-scale suburban developments also usually require the developer to pay for (or at least their fair share of) replacement and/or enlarging of services. If an engineering case can be made by the municipality that this development is directly responsible for the need to upgrade, that the developer bare the brunt of the cost. If the enlargement will have a benefit to other lands as well, the city usually puts a condition in the agreement that any other development that benefits from the enlargement should either pay the first developer, or the city in order to access it.

In terms of urban infrastructure, if a water pipe does need to be upsized because of a development, chances are the city will go for it because it will increase capacity for other nearby developments as well. If that's the case, the city would probably work out a deal between the developer(s) and themselves for some sort of a cost-sharing agreement.

I've seen this type of deal done myself, where the city wanted an arterial road through the subdivision, the developer wanted a local road, so an agreement was reached that the difference in cost between building a local road and building an arterial was paid for by the city, with the rest of it paid for by the developer.

 

[Asterix]

I've seen this type of deal done myself, where the city wanted an arterial road through the subdivision, the developer wanted a local road, so an agreement was reached that the difference in cost between building a local road and building an arterial was paid for by the city, with the rest of it paid for by the developer.

That's great and makes good sense. But where does the city get the money for this increased infrastructure if it is not from the development fees charged to the development?

In a normal situation, that is just what those fees are for (in addition to the developer built infrastructure). But now those fees are going towards the subway, leaving what funds to pay for the things you mention?

 

[Asterix]

It depends on the neighbourhood, but in many parts of the city an influx of children could save under-capacity schools from closure.

So if we're looking at an increased population of 10 - 20,000/km along the corridor, let's be conservative and say only 10% are school-aged kids (elementary through high school).

Can you identify which schools along that corridor are under-capacity in the neighbourhood of 1,500 kids? (Even being generous with a total of four schools covering that stretch, we're still looking at nearly 400 per school.)

 

[Asterix]

It depends on the neighbourhood, but in many parts of the city an influx of children could save under-capacity schools from closure.

So if we're looking at an increased population of 10 - 20,000/km along the corridor, let's be conservative and say only 10% are school-aged kids (elementary through high school).

Can you identify which schools along that corridor are under-capacity in the neighbourhood of 1,500 kids? (Even being generous with a total of four schools covering that stretch, we're still looking at nearly 400 per school.)

 

[toraerach]

Can you identify which schools along that corridor are under-capacity in the neighbourhood of 1,500 kids? (Even being generous with a total of four schools covering that stretch, we're still looking at nearly 400 per school.)

I don't have a list of enrollment numbers at each school at hand, but given that the trend towards specialty schools and commuter kids is continuing, you wouldn't necessarily need to stick all those kids in neighbourhood schools. It might not be an ideal situation, and there are problems with the specialty school program, but at least the kids will have a brand new LRT line to whisk them away to whatever fad school the TDSB cooks up!

 

[rbt]

... but at least the kids will have a brand new LRT line to whisk them away to whatever fad school the TDSB cooks up!

Probably not. A fully funded Sheppard will not be completed until 2020 at the earliest and potentially later for the western segment). You can assume that any kind of development levy and rezoning will apply immediately and occupancy could be as early as 2015. There could be as much as 10 years of occupied high density development before the subway is available to ride if, say, the private corporation goes bankrupt due to a major recession between now and 2020 (there will be another recession in that time period) or if they decide to simply walk away.

One of the bigger problems with privatization in London is that the contract holders were walking away when costs (due to their poor maintenance) increased.

P3s can be great but they also require that single firm to successfully complete the project. They don't always do so. One advantage to the TTC breaking up contracts into segments is 1) more bidders due to smaller sizes and 2) you can get a replacement company when one does not meet their obligations.

 

[valvenis]

In addition, any companies that supplying parts to a single firm can also go out business and muck everything up. The new subway trains were delayed for almost a year that reason:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...delayed-after-door-company-goes-belly-up.aspx

 

[W. K. Lis]

Crosstown meetings in June, from the TTC website at this link:

Crosstown Project Updates

The following public meetings are being hosted by TTC Chair Karen Stintz and Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne.

Date: June 8th, 2011
Time: 7:00pm - 8:30pm
Location: Scarborough Civic Centre Council Chamber - 150 Borough Drive

Date: June 21, 2011
Time: 7:00pm - 8:30pm
Location: Beth Sholom Synagogue - 1445 Eglinton Avenue West (at Allen Road)

Didn't find out about the meeting at

Date: May 31st, 2011
Time: 7:00pm - 8:30pm
Location: Leaside Memorial Gardens - 1073 Millwood Road

until after the fact. Must have lost the Leaside notice in the snail mail. Did anyone get their notice in either snail mail or an e-mail?