Transit and Condos

[calimehtar]

I rediscovered a 2008 post on Spacing about a study that was done on the Queen Streetcar.
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2008/01/21/the-continuing-saga-of-the-queen-car/

The pdf seems to have been moved. Anyway from what I can tell the only change recommended in this report that was implemented was to try breaking it into separate routes, and that was eventually changed back to a single route. I don't recall any discussion of traffic signal priority, reduced street parking or turning restrictions.

Spacing says, "It is important to keep this issue on the front burner for TTC Commissioners and City Hall. This is not only for the passengers left to their own devices on Queen Street, but for the entire city." Am I wrong, or has the issue been dropped since then?

 

[RT2020]

Your argument makes no sense. These added condos put extra strain on transit only if you assume those people don't use transit before moving to condos. How do you think these people get around before moving to the new condos, flying?

Let me say that again, condo condos don't add strain on public transit. Whoever moved to these condos end up using transit less because by living downtown, one is closer to amenities and therefore their need to take transit/drive cars is less. I just don't understand this "don't build condos in downtown any more because our transit is congested enough" argument. It makes zero sense. downtowners are more likely to walk or bike to their destination.

+1

 

[innsertnamehere]

but who is moving into the houses they used to live in? those people use transit. no matter what way you put it, new housing stock adds to the strain. downtown stock will add less than suburban stock, but it still adds regardless to a network that is already approaching the breaking point.

 

[fedplanner]

but who is moving into the houses they used to live in? those people use transit. no matter what way you put it, new housing stock adds to the strain.

I never thought I would agree with balenciaga. Household size is shrinking, so I do not accept the argument that new housing stock by itself adds strain to the system. It's population growth that impacts infrastructure networks.

Simply adding condos along a transit line that is overcapacity is not in of itself a bad thing either. For arguments sake, let's say someone living in a townhouse near Sheppard Station on the Yonge line takes the subway down to King everyday around the same time, during the morning rush, to work at First Canadian Place. Now let's say this person moved to the new INDX condos and is now able to walk to work. They still use the subway, but it's no longer during peak periods on the inbound rush. This has a positive impact on transit as additional revenue is generated using existing, underutilized capacity. Now let's say a new person moves into the vacated townhouse near Sheppard Station, but this person works in the Nestle building. They can also walk to work. They still use the subway, but it's no longer during periods on routes that are overcapacity. There is a whole pseudoscience in transportation engineering that modules impacts on changes of land uses and density. The TTC does this exceptionally well, and is often studies by American transportation planners and engineers.

I'm a strong believer that people should live near where they work, and that mixed-uses, even in employment areas, are a good thing. It's also better if people walk, bike or use transit than drive. I also believe that overcapacity transit isn't a bad thing. It forces government to act. Unfortunately, it's been my experience that little seems to be done until things reach a crisis level. The downtown relief line was once considered a fantasy of times past, but I strongly believe that overcapacity problems on the Yonge line has put the DRL back to the forefront.

But anyway, just my opinions based on my experiences. Some of you folks do not realize how fortunate you have it...

 

[balenciaga]

but who is moving into the houses they used to live in? those people use transit. no matter what way you put it, new housing stock adds to the strain. downtown stock will add less than suburban stock, but it still adds regardless to a network that is already approaching the breaking point.

in that case you are assuming more people are living in Toronto.
According to the 2011 census, not so many at all. During 2006-2011, Toronto gained 4.5% while GTA gained 9.2%, averaging 0.9% and 1.8% a year only. GTA's growth don't fully translate into ridership at all since probably only a small percentage of them take TTC regularly.
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...acts-cma-eng.cfm?Lang=Eng&TAB=0&GK=CMA&GC=535

More people in the downtown core/old Toronto, the better. I wouldn't care if Scarborough had 100 people left because it will be a good thing for the city.
Currently old Toronto has about 750k residents, on a land of 97.5km2. Should be doubled and we will still only have less than 60% of Manhattan's density.

 

[balenciaga]

I never thought I would agree with balenciaga. Household size is shrinking, so I do not accept the argument that new housing stock by itself adds strain to the system. It's population growth that impacts infrastructure networks.

Simply adding condos along a transit line that is overcapacity is not in of itself a bad thing either. For arguments sake, let's say someone living in a townhouse near Sheppard Station on the Yonge line takes the subway down to King everyday around the same time, during the morning rush, to work at First Canadian Place. Now let's say this person moved to the new INDX condos and is now able to walk to work. They still use the subway, but it's no longer during peak periods on the inbound rush. This has a positive impact on transit as additional revenue is generated using existing, underutilized capacity. Now let's say a new person moves into the vacated townhouse near Sheppard Station, but this person works in the Nestle building. They can also walk to work. They still use the subway, but it's no longer during periods on routes that are overcapacity. There is a whole pseudoscience in transportation engineering that modules impacts on changes of land uses and density. The TTC does this exceptionally well, and is often studies by American transportation planners and engineers.

That's exactly what I have been arguing for.

People move downtown into their smaller condos, for what? For most of them, for the ability to walk to work and be less dependent on our unreliable TTC. I think it is a stupid argument to say too many downtown condo dwellers will add strain on our transit system. Despite the small % of downtown dwellers who actually take the ttc to work in the suburbs, the vast of majority of residents south of Bloor don't rely on transit as much as the rest of Toronto, particularly during peak hours.

I used to live near Yonge/Bloor for 2 years while working in the financial district near Yonge/Queen. I take the subway to work only during those -15 days like today. 95% of the work days I walk about 20 minutes to office. They are assuming that if I live someone such as finch/dufferine, I miraculously don't need to take the Yonge line and simply fly to work?

Let's face it, reality is that Toronto didn't add too many new people (based on my previous post). More people living downtown means less strain on transit. Some people simply can't think it in a logical way.

I'm a strong believer that people should live near where they work, and that mixed-uses, even in employment areas, are a good thing. It's also better if people walk, bike or use transit than drive. I also believe that overcapacity transit isn't a bad thing. It forces government to act. Unfortunately, it's been my experience that little seems to be done until things reach a crisis level. The downtown relief line was once considered a fantasy of times past, but I strongly believe that overcapacity problems on the Yonge line has put the DRL back to the forefront.

But anyway, just my opinions based on my experiences. Some of you folks do not realize how fortunate you have it...

Completely agree.
I think the golden era where people work downtown and head back to their comfylarge suburban houses 20 km a way is so outdated. It is a backward lifestyle. If one can't get to office within 30 minutes every morning, you are not making the right decison about where you should live, and you are simply sacrificing your life quality with some extra bedroom. What do we need all this space for, to put junk we don't need in it as far as I see.

And the overcapacity forcing the government to take action is good observation too. Honestly, we have a pretty lazy and extremely conservative government here. They don't want to look forward and prepare for tomorrow. They don't want to take risks and make our city a much better one. They just want to do as little as possible and to raise as few issues as possible. If things don't become critical (Gardiner for example), they simply sit there doing nothing, as doing something may be risky for their political career.

So I am glad Yonge line is over capacity. I honestly hope there will be a day of complete chaos/meltdown on the subway to force the government to take action quickly. Toronto is about 20 years behind a DRL already and they are still simply talking.

 

[Lenser]

Honestly, we have a pretty lazy and extremely conservative government here. They don't want to look forward and prepare for tomorrow. They don't want to take risks and make our city a much better one. They just want to do as little as possible and to raise as few issues as possible. If things don't become critical (Gardiner for example), they simply sit there doing nothing, as doing something may be risky for their political career.

Blaming the pols is the easy way out. We tend to get the kinds of elected officials we deserve. Too few people bother to exercise their right to vote in civic matters, and too few of those who do vote take the trouble to properly inform themselves on the issues involved - it's far easier to decide on often-complex issues in advance, based on little more than our own biases and predilections for listening to our pet media sources.

Our politicians are supposed to be acting for the public good - if they are not, a goodly portion of the blame must land at the feet of a disinterested, cynical, easily distracted electorate. The voters should not be left off the hook on this. Sadly, blaming the boogeyman that is 'the gubbmint' is all too common.

Democracy is like a muscle - you must exercise it lest it turn to fat.

 

[balenciaga]

Blaming the pols is the easy way out. We tend to get the kinds of elected officials we deserve. Too few people bother to exercise their right to vote in civic matters, and too few of those who do vote take the trouble to properly inform themselves on the issues involved - it's far easier to decide on often-complex issues in advance, based on little more than our own biases and predilections for listening to our pet media sources.

Our politicians are supposed to be acting for the public good - if they are not, a goodly portion of the blame must land at the feet of a disinterested, cynical, easily distracted electorate. The voters should not be left off the hook on this. Sadly, blaming the boogeyman that is 'the gubbmint' is all too common.

Democracy is like a muscle - you must exercise it lest it turn to fat.

that's only partly true.
Once the politicians are elected, they can go ahead to do whatever they want. One weakness of our democracy is politicians are not held liable for their election promises. If they are, they wouldn't make all the sweet promises any more.

 

[Lenser]

Are you speaking of a desire to 'recall' politicians whose performance the electorate deems sub-standard? If so, the problem with that is that it's all too easy to get caught in a loop where all we do is elect people, yank them from office, and elect fresh victims who will in short order be also kicked to the curb. It might make for good news fodder but nothing will get done.

If many of our politicians tend to feel free to do whatever they want once elected, it's partially because they know full well how relatively few people bothered to vote, thereby putting them in office. In that light, I can see how it might be terribly tempting to to take a carte blanche attitude to public service.

However you wish to look at it, the citizenry has a role to play. Whether they choose to actively play it is their decision; you can't blame politicians for an electorate that doesn't think it's cool to vote. That's why I think that just blaming the politicians is a mug's game.

That said, I have noted your previously-stated fondness for political systems where the will of the common people is roundly ignored by the ruling elite - so I already grok that you are hardly an ardent fan of democracy (however flawed it may be in practise). Personally, I am ecstatic that we are not in some draconian state-run system where a clutch of technocrats at the top have the exclusive right to decide what our cities should look like, and who should inhabit them.

 

[balenciaga]

^ I have learned the hard way that one is not allowed to have a different view on modern democracy on this forum, so I won't bother discussing this issue any longer. It is an urban/architecture forum, let it stay that way. Let's both believe what we believe, no matter what it is.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It might be better to drop mayoral terms back to 3 years, and federal to 4. I feel 5 & 4 year mandates are just too long, people start getting upset in year 3.

 

[Lenser]

^ I have learned the hard way that one is not allowed to have a different view on modern democracy on this forum, so I won't bother discussing this issue any longer. It is an urban/architecture forum, let it stay that way. Let's both believe what we believe, no matter what it is.

"Not allowed?" Hardly. You make it sound as if you've been bullied on this board - that's rich. Your stance in this one post is ultimately defeatist. If you want to cop out, ok. But I've not been berating you and this has been a civil discussion. More's the pity, then, that you opt out of further discussion. However, I've a hunch you'll be back.

 

[Lenser]

It might be better to drop mayoral terms back to 3 years, and federal to 4. I feel 5 & 4 year mandates are just too long, people start getting upset in year 3.

I like the idea except for one thing - the cost of elections. Adding in more cycles of elections costs the city coffers, big time. Still, three year term limits have their own attractions.

 

[marsh]

"I used to live near Yonge/Bloor for 2 years while working in the financial district near Yonge/Queen. I take the subway to work only during those -15 days like today. 95% of the work days I walk about 20 minutes to office."

With all due respect, you can't extropolate base on your own personal experiences. I know a lot of people who live near Yonge and Bloor and also work in the financial district and they regularly take the Bay bus or the subway to get to work and back. Also there are many people, elderly, disabled, who are increasingly living downtown and rely on transit to travel short distances because they physically can't walk. Yes living near work is a good thing and hopefully will encourage more people to walk, but I think it is overly simplistic to assume that the majority of people who live in the downtown core are not going to use transit regularly or not at peak hours.

The real issue to getting more transit is money. We need to be realistic about how we are going to fund transit. For those who have the opinion that if we keep building condos and increasing the density downtown, we will some how force the government to act because of crisis point will be reached, I respectfully disagree, because this is what we've been doing for the past few years and there's been nothing and in my view we are already at a crisis. I do blame city hall's shenanigans as well as the province for part of the whole transit debacle, but the reality is we need to find the funds. And I don't think we can expect to have huge handouts from the provincial government (though I think they should be investing more in Toronto). I think we should charge higher development fees. I think we should reinstate the vehicle registration tax and start earmarking those funds towards transit. There may be other taxes that we have to start thinking about like tolls. None of these are popular. People want everything but don't want to pay for it. We need to start having a honest conversation with ourselves about our expectations and the reality - you pay for what you get.

 

[PinkLucy]

Transit must also have some seasonal and time of day variances. I generally walk wherever I go (I live downtown) but when it's pouring rain or really cold, I'm more likely to hop on the streetcar, even for a short distance. I'm also more likely to take it late at night rather than walk alone in certain areas.