M
miketoronto
Guest
The following is from
wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/pu...nadian.htm
As you guys know Toronto use to be a North American model for transit, before the cuts. Anyway check out these stats from when Toronto was a great transit city and a model.
If only our region grew the 905 in the way our inner suburbs grew, kept our transit funding high, and continued to put jobs in our downtown. Then maybe we would still be held up as a model.
Its so sad to see how we have lost our model of urban planning and transport.
While Toronto is still a great transit city, you can't help but feel bad when you read the stats below. Just remeber our current per capital ridership is now around 125 trips a person. Look what it was in the 1990's.
--------
Toronto is far less dominated by cars and indeed is the best North American example of transit-oriented development (Kenworthy and Newman, 1994). From 1960 to 1990 there was a large growth of 127% in Metro Toronto's transit use up to 350 trips per capita, which represents European levels of transit ridership,
Even Greater Toronto, which includes the lower density, more car-oriented suburbs of the region had 210 transit trips per capita in 1990, by far the biggest in North America and some 35% higher than the next best metropolitan region, New York.
The central city area (CBD) of Toronto has continued to grow in population over the past decades, adding some 20,000 new dwellings between 1975 and 1988 (Nowlan and Stewart, 1992), and Metro Toronto's density increased by 13% between 1960 and 1990 (particularly along its transit lines).
Metro Toronto with its 2.3 million people. As a result, it has been able to revitalise the downtown area and to develop a density in Metro Toronto (41 persons per ha) that is closer to European levels than American. Even the greater Toronto area has a density of 26 persons per ha, which is almost double the average US and Australian metropolitan densities.
Metro Toronto's 22 smaller sub-cities, together with a healthy downtown which has even managed to reduce parking supply per 1000 jobs by 11% between 1980 and 1990, provide the basis for a viable transit system.
Toronto's new central city housing has reduced the morning peak by 100 cars for every 120 units built (Nowlan and Stewart, 1992). There are families living in the city centre in the European tradition, which of course greatly enhances the vitality and safety of the public spaces.
Recent trends in Toronto are threatening to take some of the gloss away from these gains for sustainability as large scale cuts in the transit system have been implemented causing reductions in patronage (Pucher, 1995).
A significant part of these problems are the many changes in urban governance which are being implemented in Toronto and other Canadian urban regions and which are pushing towards a model of fragmentation in urban government, the politics of local self-interest and harmful competition between municipalities. These changes are tending to favour auto-dependent land use and transportation planning (Raad and Kenworthy, 1998) .
wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/pu...nadian.htm
As you guys know Toronto use to be a North American model for transit, before the cuts. Anyway check out these stats from when Toronto was a great transit city and a model.
If only our region grew the 905 in the way our inner suburbs grew, kept our transit funding high, and continued to put jobs in our downtown. Then maybe we would still be held up as a model.
Its so sad to see how we have lost our model of urban planning and transport.
While Toronto is still a great transit city, you can't help but feel bad when you read the stats below. Just remeber our current per capital ridership is now around 125 trips a person. Look what it was in the 1990's.
--------
Toronto is far less dominated by cars and indeed is the best North American example of transit-oriented development (Kenworthy and Newman, 1994). From 1960 to 1990 there was a large growth of 127% in Metro Toronto's transit use up to 350 trips per capita, which represents European levels of transit ridership,
Even Greater Toronto, which includes the lower density, more car-oriented suburbs of the region had 210 transit trips per capita in 1990, by far the biggest in North America and some 35% higher than the next best metropolitan region, New York.
The central city area (CBD) of Toronto has continued to grow in population over the past decades, adding some 20,000 new dwellings between 1975 and 1988 (Nowlan and Stewart, 1992), and Metro Toronto's density increased by 13% between 1960 and 1990 (particularly along its transit lines).
Metro Toronto with its 2.3 million people. As a result, it has been able to revitalise the downtown area and to develop a density in Metro Toronto (41 persons per ha) that is closer to European levels than American. Even the greater Toronto area has a density of 26 persons per ha, which is almost double the average US and Australian metropolitan densities.
Metro Toronto's 22 smaller sub-cities, together with a healthy downtown which has even managed to reduce parking supply per 1000 jobs by 11% between 1980 and 1990, provide the basis for a viable transit system.
Toronto's new central city housing has reduced the morning peak by 100 cars for every 120 units built (Nowlan and Stewart, 1992). There are families living in the city centre in the European tradition, which of course greatly enhances the vitality and safety of the public spaces.
Recent trends in Toronto are threatening to take some of the gloss away from these gains for sustainability as large scale cuts in the transit system have been implemented causing reductions in patronage (Pucher, 1995).
A significant part of these problems are the many changes in urban governance which are being implemented in Toronto and other Canadian urban regions and which are pushing towards a model of fragmentation in urban government, the politics of local self-interest and harmful competition between municipalities. These changes are tending to favour auto-dependent land use and transportation planning (Raad and Kenworthy, 1998) .
