On a tangentially related note, I think one of the big problems with the planning that we do in Toronto is that everything is centred on arterials. It's understandable because of the Queen/College/Danforth streetcar suburb precedent, but especially when you stretch out over longer distances, it becomes impractical. I think the European model is a good one for pedestrian and transit friendly neighbourhoods. When you go there, you'll notice that in many cases, neighbourhoods turn their back on arterials. Kensington Market is a good Toronto example. The shopping and restaurants and public uses are, as often as not, on the connecting side streets, while the arterial roads themselves serve a more utilitarian function. Major roads make better neighbourhood boundaries than neighbourhood centres. People naturally don't want to have to cross wide streets. That's why so many of the successful pedestrian streets are narrow. That doesn't mean that you should get rid of all wide streets. It means that you should encourage (or at least not ban) commercial development on all your narrower streets. I think the neighbourhood unit planning approach that has been dominant in Toronto for many years is on to something. It's just that it has traditionally been centred on arterial road junctions rather than transit stops. Imagine if Don Mills was built around a rail or subway station rather than around the Don Mills/Lawrence intersection. Wide arterials could be the boundaries of the neighbourhood units, while rapid transit lines would run right to their heart. That's a recipe for high transit ridership and pedestrian friendly communities.
