Life in the Lane
Yesterday, I had the honour of attending the Ryerson University School of Urban & Regional Planning awards ceremony and accepting the IBI Group Award on behalf of myself, Danny Bridson, Joanna Craig, Heather Finlay, Virpal Kataure, Alex Leung, Chris Pereira, Adam Szaflarski and Jesse Watson. This honour is awarded to group projects for excellence in the professional practice, and the Life in the Lane project we completed in December of 2009 was the lucky project.
Read more »Labels: urban design
Thoughts on the intertubes
When I first started blogging, a lot of the ideas that I proposed were influenced by what I read on sites like Urban Toronto and the Canadian Public Transportation Discussion Board. I don't know if the quality of discussion has changed or if I have changed, but I feel that those venues (and others like the official Facebook and Twitter pages for the transit establishments and newspaper article comments) have become filled with comments about how every endeavour to improve transit is an epic failure, a pork barrel project, or a general waste of time and money. Generally speaking, it's quite rare that a viable alternative emerges from this discourse.
As a planner in the digital economy, I'm left wondering what the effects on public consultation will be as it moves online onto these venues where unwavering opposition can drown out other opinions. If my perception of the quality of discourse is accurate, I fear that agencies will become less responsive to the public demands. We must create solutions to the problems we face as a society, but in the absense of constructive criticism, it is likely that the solution will not be implemented at all, or it will be implemented as proposed without changes. The result is no one being happy and everyone being mad at the planning process.
Read more »Labels: comments, politics, urban design
City Loses Heart Lake Appeal - Brampton Guardian
The proposed development at the corner of
Sandalwood and Conestoga in the Heart Lake neighbourhood of Brampton is something
that I've blogged about for a very, very long time. I won't rehash my reasons for supporting the development, but I will provide a recap of the story thus far:
Read more »Labels: comments, urban design
Daily commute to Toronto forced me to move - YorkRegion.com
This article appeared on YorkRegion.com this past week, and it's worth reproducing in its entirety. Of course, some of the commenters on the article argue that the author will feel differently once he is older, has a full time job and a family, but I disagree. It might be a desire to party, a desire to enjoy your hobby or a desire to spend more time with your family - long commutes are no way to live because they take time away from living your life.
Going forward, all municipalities have to encourage live-work-play developments and move away from just being bedroom communities. They also have to invest in all-day, bi-directional transit service to reduce congestion and make their neighbourhoods more accessible and attractive. If they don't, there is a real risk of a mass exodus when the price of oil rapidly forces people to look for alternatives to their cars.
Article after the jump.
Read more »Labels: urban design, york region transit
The best laid plans of people and patios
One of the elements that make for vibrant streets in cities is the boulevard patio. King Street West between Simcoe and Spadina, for example, is a perfect example. In the summer, patios allow restaurants to showcase their menus to passers-by and it caters to a near universal desire to get outside and enjoy the good weather. For visitors, it makes the streetscape more attractive and gives people a reason to get out of their cars and walk. For municipalities, a more successful business district means higher property values, investment and a more successful city overall.
Now, in Toronto, boulevard patios are governed by Chapter 313 of the Municipal Code for the old City of Toronto and the Vibrant Streets policy document, and approval requires that there be a 2.13m pedestrian clearway between the curb and the patio. In other words, the application will be denied if either the curb or a piece of street furniture is less than 2.13 m from the patio. This is a reasonable limitation, as a patio that takes up the entire sidewalk is counter-productive to the goal of vibrant streets. But, the next part of the Code causes things to get a bit squirrelly.
(More after the jump)
Read more »Labels: municipal sillyness, urban design
Equal opportunity opinions
Today I received an anonymous comment on my
Heart Lake post which said, and I quote, "Where do you live? I can guarantee everyone it's not Heart Lake!"
After careful consideration, I've decided that I will not, after this post, entertain such comments on my blog. Here's why:
If I were a betting man, my wager would be on the poster telling me that since I don't live in Heart Lake, I don't understand the issues and therefor my opinion is irrelevant. I do not live in Heart Lake, nor have I ever claimed to live in Heart Lake, nor have I ever claimed to represent the community. However, for the last 15 years I have shopped at the majority of businesses in Heart Lake; enjoyed the library, recreation centre / pool, trails and sports fields in Heart Lake; and I have even worked in Heart Lake at the recreation centre. The vast majority of the people I hung out with in high school lived in Heart Lake and many still do. I read the local newspaper, and I even remember when Loafer's Lake had paddle boats you could rent. In addition, I am a graduate of Ryerson University's School of Urban and Regional Planning where I have gained the knowledge to better understand my own community and be able to critically examine modern planning principles. I believe that those aspects of my person qualify me to speak on development issues in Heart Lake.
But, even if all the above was untrue, any informed person should be given the opportunity to speak on any issue and not have their opinion dismissed because they don't live on the right side of an arbitrary boundary. If this were the case, then what gives Brampton City Council, other than the councillors for the area (and perhaps the mayor) the moral authority to make decisions that affect Heart Lake? If only two (local and regional) councillors actually lives here, shouldn't the rest of them just butt out too?
It's okay to respectfully disagree with someone else. However, it is not okay to attempt to marginalize someone because they do not agree with your position. Everyone has something to contribute to the discourse of how we want our communities to develop, and everyone should be heard. So, if you don't like what I have to say then I encourage you to start your own blog or write your elected officials and tell them where you stand on issues. As long as the issues are being discussed, I have done my job.
Labels: comments, Heart Lake, urban design
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the (b)OMB
I think
this blog post is worth re-posting in light of the protest against the decision this weekend. My stance on the issue has not changed, as I truly believe that this is the kind of development we need to turn around our neighbourhood.
We often talk about the OMB taking away our right to build the community we want to see. Well, the Heart Lake that I want to see is inclusive and offers a variety of housing for people of different family sizes and income levels. I want to see it support local businesses by growing their customer base. I want better transit, and raising density increases transit ridership which results in increased service. I want to see taxes stay low by bringing in more people to help pay for infrastructure. I want to see a place where the environment is protected by building away from the Greenbelt and pristine farmland. I want to see a place where there is no longer a disconnect between "I want to live there" and "I can live there".
The Ontario Municipal Board has not taken away our rights. In fact, the OMB has upheld our right to live in a place we've been saying we want to live in for years.
Labels: Heart Lake, municipal sillyness, urban design
City challenges OMB decision - Brampton Guardian
A while back I wrote about a controversial development proposal to put a collection of high-rises and town homes on a undeveloped lot about 10 minutes drive from my home. Last week the Ontario Municipal Board ruled in favour of the developer, ordering the City of Brampton to give the necessary planning approvals to allow the project to move forward. The city had voted to withhold those approvals, and is
vowing to continue to fight the decision. In these cases, an OMB decision can only be appealed if the board committed an error in law.
I had initially supported the project, and I do to this day. I believe that the traffic concerns can be mitigated and that the amenities in the area make this the best location for a high-density development. I don't think property values will be affected, as this development could be the catalyst to upgrade the Heart Lake Town Centre plaza - and that could mean higher property values from better nearby amenities.
In short, I think this development is good planning. Cities grow - that is an undeniable fact. When we enacted the Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act, we made a decision that growing outward was not something we wanted to do anymore. The only other direction is upwards, and it's unrealistic to think that
our neighbourhood will be exempt from the policy that we wanted put in place. If we are as committed to the environment as we say we are, we all have to chip in.
In reading my original blog post about this issue I've realized something... Back in 2007, I was fairly gung-ho about the need to reform the Ontario Municipal Board - the appeal body for matters of urban planning in Ontario. But, having just finished writing my final examination to complete my Bachelor of Urban & Regional Planning, I've realized that I've almost come full circle. We may not like the Ontario Municipal Board's decisions, but a society that only makes the popular choice usually ends up bankrupt. Somewhere along the line, we have to make the choice that betters our society - not just our impression of our society. If municipal councils choose the popular option, someone must be there to step in and make the right decision. It is for these rare occasions that we need expert panels like the OMB. I would much rather see every disputed development go to mediation to find a solution acceptable to everyone, but if that cannot be achieved, we need an independent panel of planning experts to judge what is right - in the same way we ask trial judges to help decide guilt or innocence.
Labels: Heart Lake, municipal sillyness, politics, urban design
Brampton Guardian - Downtown GO lot could be site of hotel/convention centre
According to the
Brampton Guardian, Brampton's Mayor is pushing for a hotel and convention centre to be built in the parking lot of the GO station in the city's historic downtown. Of course the knee-jerk reaction is "DON'T TOUCH MY FREE PARKING", but there's no reason why GO parking can't be incorporated into the development. In fact, reconfiguring the site could probably solve the traffic problems around train time. Surface lots are a terrible use of land when we can have jobs and economic development, and almost every planning principle I can think of says that, in principle, this is a good idea.
Mayor Susan Fennell, you are going to have to difficult time selling this to people who refuse to think outside of the box. But, downtown Brampton is booming and this is the kind of investment we need to keep that boom going. My only concern is that sight lines of the station from Church Street should be preserved. It's a federally designated heritage railway station, after all.
Labels: urban design
The Star - The 'C' question has no good answer
You can read the article
here, but here are two excepts that really grind my gears:
"And I have heard this exact question at least 10 times. Not, "How are you managing the commute?" or "How long does it take to commute?" The answer is simple: It's awful. None of what attracted me to moving back to my hometown had to do with being stranded, a prisoner caged in her car, on the Don Valley Parkway for an hour, twice a day. That's two hours a day from my life that I can't get back."At what point does a person come to the realization that they could be doing much more with their time?
"Of course, there are alternatives: the GO train, the subway etc. And I'm determined to explore those, and soon. But as far as I'm concerned – and perhaps the other 60,000 who drive to and from Richmond Hill feel the same – if I'm going to be stuck for two hours a day, I'd rather be stuck in my own space, completely independent and able to blast the radio and chat to friends (on hands-free cellphones, natch) than be squished onto a train."Seeing as the Richmond Hill train does not fill to capacity, one would never be squished. Seriously... People need to stop pre-judging things before they try them. An iPod can give you all the tunes you like and more, and do your friends really want to hear from you at 7:30 in the morning? I know mine don't.
Labels: urban design
Fuzzy logic
I sometimes listen to right-leaning talk radio. This morning the number one argument I heard against bike lanes on Jarvis Street (before I turned it off due to angered blood) was that four months out of the year it snows and cyclists pack it in for the winter. The logic was that an infrastructure project that cannot be used year round is a poor investment.
So, by that logic, snow removal is a poor investment because the plows sit idle for eight months. Cleaning up the beaches of trash and E. coli is a poor investment because June, July and August are the only swimming months. Public golf courses, landscaping services, tennis courts, splash pads... Most specific-use parks would be a bad investment because they can't be used year-round.
Cyclists do not seek to force motorists out of their cars - high gas prices, congestion and changing views on the environment and on urban land use will do that - they only seek to have some safety on our roads. I don't think it's an unreasonable request, as more cyclists means fewer cars clogging up the roads.
Labels: cycling, urban design
Much ado about a bridge
As we move towards more frequent service on the Georgetown, Milton and Barrie/Bradford GO lines, as well as implement an express train to the airport and increase VIA rail services, there is a need to separate trains from cars at Strachan Avenue, just west of the approach to Union Station. However, there appears to be a showdown brewing over the preferred option. Metrolinx, the regional transit authority, is recommending that Strachan Avenue be raised above the tracks, while the city of Toronto is recommending that the tracks be lowered below Strachan Avenue.
I'm not going to take sides quite, but I have reproduced the planning matrix from the City of Toronto's report:
| | Strachan Overpass | Railway Underpass |
| Street Network Connectivity | VERY POOR
Maintains Strachan connections
Removes 3 east/west connections
Impacts Quality Meats Access | VERY GOOD
Maintains existing patterns and allows for improvements |
| Open Space Community | VERY GOOD
Does not impact open space | VERY GOOD
Maintains existing patterns and allows for improvements |
| Pedestrian/cyclist Experience | VERY POOR
Unattractive ped. environment
No cycling lanes
Very long approaches
Increased change in grade | VERY GOOD
Maintains existing patterns and allows for improvements |
| Existing Development Impact | VERY POOR
Disconnects 460m of existing frontage
Overshadows existing development | VERY GOOD
Maintains existing patterns and allows for improvements |
| Development Potential | VERY POOR
High Impact on adjacent sites
Restricted frontage south of crossing
Restricted access to Triangle Lands | VERY GOOD
Maintains existing patterns and allows for improvements |
| Cost and Feasibility | POOR
Medium impact on utilities
No impact on railway operations during construction
Difficult construction with adjacent existing development
~ $25 million | VERY POOR
High impact on utilities
Cost of new trackage
Impacts railway operations during construction
~ $125 million |
As we can see, lowering the railway is the optimal solution, but it costs a heck of a lot more than the sub-optimal solution. Taking a look at the broader issue,
If the objective is to separate cars from trains, do urban design considerations justify spending much more than the absolute minimum necessary to get the job done?
If so, how much more?
Is the city paying for the construction, or is the province paying through Metrolinx?
How would the recommendation change if the opposite party were the one paying for the construction?
We are at the intersection of city-building and fiscal responsibility, and the rhetoric has already started to fly. But, why does it always seem to be about bridges in this city?
Labels: politics, urban design
Intensification in unlikely places
Usually when we think of intensification we think of condo towers going up on former parking lots in the downtown core or derelict plazas being redeveloped into mixed-use residential-commercial buildings in uptown neighbourhoods. But, according to
a Toronto Star article, there is one intensification project in Oakville that seems pretty unique to me.
The Edgemere Estate is a 15-year-old, 32,000 square foot mansion on 5.7 hectares on the lake in Oakville. It has 17 bathrooms, a 20-seat theatre, a spa, a baseball diamond and 300 metres of shoreline. Once the residence of the head of Mattamy Homes, the mansion is slated to be demolished to make way for 30 luxury condominium units on the site. They will be between 2700 and 5500 square feet, While this development probably isn't going to make a dent in the suburbia that Oakville has become, this is an example of the kinds of little developments things that cities can welcome to increase the overall density of the area. When density increases the tax base goes up and the financial burden placed on each resident for infrastructure maintenance goes down as more people share sewers and roads (which might not even need to be upgraded if the development is small). It makes transit more cost effective as it puts more potential riders in the catchment area, and it can lead to stronger communities as the residents are less isolated from their neighbours.
Intensification doesn't have to mean 60-storey towers. It can be stacked townhouses, or in this case, mini-mansions where one large estate once was. Either way, it's a step in the right direction towards a more sustainable urban future.
Labels: urban design
Rapid transit is coming to Caledon
Since I'm in the middle of finals I haven't really had a chance to celebrate the final approval of the Regional Transportation Plan with in-depth analysis, but this story did come across my desk (sofa?).
An
editorial in the Caledon Enterprise by Mayor Marolyn Morrison outlines what benefits the town will receive under the RTP, and while some of her comments are more progressive than I've ever heard from a Caledon politician (
like acknowledging the plight of Michael Chrobok and pushing for better GO Transit service), the political culture of Town Hall has plenty to still be ashamed of.
Under the regional transportation plan, the Hurontario rapid transit line will run from Port Credit to the Mayfield West neighbourhood at the Caledon / Brampton border. This is a big win for a community that is about to explode development wise, but the fact that none of the currently proposed development will support the rapid transit. In fact, the terminus of the line will likely be a Wal-Mart. Brampton has been talking about higher-order transit on Hurontario for years, so the fact that transit oriented development was left out of the area's secondary plan is, in my opinion, inexcusable.
In addition to the Hurontario line, Caledon will also see GO train service on the CP line to at least Bolton. GO tends to better attract the demographic of people who live in Caledon than more locally-oriented transit would, but the densities and residential-employment mix of the town don't give the line the numbers to warrant much more than peak-hour service. I'm a big fan of improving service to attract ridership but ultimately we have to have the numbers to support the service. If service in Caledon is to improve, densities have to increase - something the Town has been reluctant to support.
The RTP will bring some good to Caledon, but it's a shame that the Mayor is still talking about highways as a solution for commuter when we all know that they fill up instantly and only encourage further urban sprawl. It's a shame that density targets and urban design guidelines are so low that they don't support rapid transit use. It's a shame that the town doesn't support local rapid transit to extend the range of these rapid transit lines beyond the walking distance of the stops.
Don't get me wrong - I'm very happy that Caledon is getting improved transit service. I think it's a common sense solution to the congestion problems we're facing today. But, it's also a shame that certain common sense measures, like the provision of sidewalks in neighbourhoods, seemingly have to be forced upon town policy makers.
Labels: GTTA plan, politics, urban design
TTC looks at cutting out Metropass parking perk - Toronto Star
A lot of buzz is being generated about
a proposal at the TTC board to eliminate the free parking privileges that Metropass users have at some commuter parking lots in the city.
While parking is a terrible use of land, and we should be looking at developing over the lots at many GO and subway stations, I have a feeling that this proposal has come a bit too early to be worth the political risk. It's true that most people will reason that it will be less expensive to pay the daily TTC fee than pay the daily parking fee at a private lot downtown, but I believe such a move doesn't address the root cause of people driving to the stations - not enough bus service.
To bring up my own personal experience - again - I live about a 20 minute walk from the nearest bus stop. From there, it is a 20 minute bus ride to the GO station. By driving, the trip takes me 20 minutes flat. There are many people faced with this dilemma, and for most, driving is the most attractive option.
In order to bridge the gap, we have to increase bus service in neighbourhoods to drastically reduce the time necessary to walk to the local stop. This means more GO shuttles, more community bus routes and even the use of mini-buses to handle the narrow streets and to counter the negative reaction some people have towards full sized buses. In addition, we have to install bike racks on all routes, as even a leisurely pace is three or four times faster than walking.
Don't get me wrong, there will be a time when free parking will be a story we tell our children (along with the fact that we could once buy a litre of gas for 63 cents), but we're not quite ready for that time.
Labels: ttc, urban design
Chateaux of Caledon plan has lots of foes in the public eye - Caledon Citizen
Every so often, a newspaper article gets published that suggests to me that the attitudes of the general public towards sustainability, better development and transportation indicate that society is doomed.
Case in point,
this article published in the Caledon Citizen yesterday.
According to a petition against the development, a proposal to build 500 homes in Caledon East was called "an excessive and unsustainable growth for the Caledon East community." I feel bad for the concept of sustainability here, as it is being taken out of context. Building low density sprawl is unsustainable. Building more units on less land is sustainable from both an environmental perspective (as it uses less land), and from a financial perspective (as a higher tax base in a small area means more revenue and less infrastructure). While this development would still be less dense than regular sprawl-type housing, it is intensification by Caledon's standards.
Of course, safety is also an issue. From the article:
One woman reflected on how Mclean's magazine had stated Caledon was the safest place in Canada earlier this year, and she feared that would change if the subdivision goes in.
"Do we need such a condensed housing development?" she asked, fearing such densities would attract crime and drugs to the area.
She also pointed out two schools are in the neighbourhood. "Innocent children and teens need protection," she said.
The woman also pointed out there are lots of activities available for kids in the village now, but adding more young people will create waiting lists, meaning some of them might have nothing else to do.
"Once it is done, and crime moves in, we cannot reverse it," she remarked.
This argument is, in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous, mildly offensive, and contradicts itself in the process. Bolton (another village in Caledon) is much more dense than this proposed development, and has several public housing developments. Is it overun by drugs and crime? NO. Is Caledon still the safest municipality in Canada even with all this supposed evil? YES.
Also from the article:
In addition, she didn't have much faith in the concept of Caledon East being a live/work/play community. It's a commuter community, she asserted, adding the part of the plan that calls for four-storey townhouses, "simply does not fit in this community."
...
The idea of the live/work units was a concern to one woman, who said she had visited a similar development in Mississauga. People there told her of problems with high turnovers, parking, deliveries, lack of storage area and snow-clearing.
"I fully believe we're making a great big mistake here," she said. "I think it's a pie-in-the-sky idea that professionals would want to live there."
Clearly, these residents feel the idea of two houses touching are just icky. Stacked townhouses are, in my opinion, an excellent way of building non-intrusive density into a project, and fit will in many places, including historic communities like downtown Woodbridge. While a 10 storey apartment building would clearly not fit in a place like that, stacked townhouses have been used very successfully to blend into the community and maintain its charm. Besides, its not the type of house that defines how well it fits into the community - it's the urban design.
Linking that comment back to the one above it, we can see another contradiction. Residents fear that a lack of businesses and services for kids will lead to crime, but don't support live/work units, which might fill the void in opportunities. While similar attempts to build live/work units have not been very successful, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It will provide opportunities for residents to access services within the community, instead of having to drive 30 minutes to Brampton or Bolton.
In addition, if it's a pie-in-the-sky idea that professionals would want to live in Caledon East, doesn't that imply that Caledon East is a bad place to live?
This article underlines the opinions of what might be a minority of people, but it's a vocal minority of people who tend to have a lot of influence in the 905. Change will come, but it will have to run against the grain and the agents of change have to be persistent.
Of course, its very difficult when the mayor calls Caledon East a walkable community. Having sidewalks doesn't make a community walkable, Madame Mayor. I will give you credit though... Caledon East does have a grocery store.
Labels: municipal sillyness, urban design
Before the big box, a vision for Leslieville. So what went wrong? - Toronto Star
A Toronto Star article in this morning's paper suggests that the residents of Leslieville and the City of Toronto may be the architects of the controversial proposal to build a Wal-Mart on Eastern Avenue - a proposal which is before the Ontario Municipal Board.
It's an interesting read about just how elusive the goal of building mixed-use communities can be.
Labels: urban design
The Endless Waltz
As we turn the corner towards a more sustainable transportation plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, there is a fair bit of consensus on where lines should be drawn. But, there is bitter debate over what sort of trains we should run along those lines.
On heavy rail lines where GO Transit has a foothold, there is strong support for a concept called Regional Express (REX), similar to the London Overground / National Rail services or the Paris RER, REX brings the frequency of subway lines to the commuter rail network. Station spacing will remain generally the same, resulting in a fast, frequent suburban metro to connect the 905 at all hours of the day and turn the stations into true mobility hubs. On other GO lines, the familiar green bi-level trains will continue to operate, but at much higher frequencies. Most lines will see two trains per hour at the bare minimum. On the highways and off-road corridors, Ottawa-style transit-ways will be built to bring long-distance buses out of traffic. Higher quality stations and extensions will improve access to the network which is currently restricted to GO stations and wind-swept park-and-rides. On city streets, bus rapid transit, light rail transit and heavy rail subways will be the workhorses, but the pros and cons between these three technologies has turned friend into foe and neighbour into rival.
Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit (of which I prefer the latter, as they both have identical applications but experiences in Hamilton and Ottawa have shown that residents are willing to spend more to have rail), as implemented in Toronto, will likely run in transit-only lanes in the median - much like a 510 SPADINA or a 509 HARBOURFRONT streetcar, only much faster. These lines are much less expensive to build than subways, and can be built much faster than subways. However, passenger capacity is lower and travel time is much longer. In addition, light rail tends to encourage a constant strip of medium-density development along the route due to the relatively close station spacing. Since property around the stations are most valuable, the close spacing results in a generally equal value from end to end. If we were to build light rail in Toronto and optimize the land use policies to reflect the transit service, then we can expect the built-form to resemble Queen Street or College Street.
On the other hand, subways, as implemented in Toronto, will likely run exclusively underground. These lines are much more expensive than light rail, and take much longer to build. However, subways can carry more people and move them much faster. As for development, subways tend to encourage very high densities around the stations due to the distance station spacing. Since property around the stations are most valuable, the areas in between stations won't attract the same level of investment. If we were to build subways in Toronto and optimize the land use policies to reflect the transit service, then we can expect the built-form to resemble.
So which approach is better for Toronto?
Check out any thread related to Transit City on the
Urban Toronto Forum, and you'll quickly find that there is no shortage of opinion. But how do we resolve such conflicting views?
If travel times are the most important factor, then subways are the only way to go. But, will subways hurt businesses in between stations by speeding potential customers past?
Looking at Queen West, one of the reasons I believe it is so successful is the fact that someone can browse the stores just by riding the streetcar. If we were to build a subway, there is a possibility that this dynamic could be lost forever, as a Queen Street Subway would completely replace the streetcar - shifting travel patters would make surface ridership dwindle to the point where reconstruction of the line would not pass any business case. But, some neighbourhoods are strong enough to withstand this transition. Danforth was - as was North Yonge - but is the rapid gentrification of Queen West the instability needed to tip the balance?
If we're looking at ensuring that every point on the corridor has generally equal access to higher order transit, then light rail is a viable option. But, are the travel times enough to speed up the commute of the potential riders, and are the capacities high enough to carry us 30 years into the future? The relatively low cost is very attractive, but does it really help build the sort of complete communities that many advocates predict - and if so, is this type of development any better than subway-oriented development?
The City of Toronto has a plan to cover the city in modern light rail transit. Some have suggested that it is nothing more than a fetish for streetcars, and if there is money for light rail, there is money for subways. Yes, this is true, but the issue is far more complex. In the real world, we cannot afford to build subways instead of light rail. We will not make a dent in the issues of improving commutes for people if we trade 5 light rail lines for 2 subway lines. Also, in the real world, we cannot ignore the development that transit can encourage. It's not as simple as zoning for what we want and watching developers flock - there must be some incentive for them to invest in underused properties.
While there are certain corridors which could be upgraded to subway if the money is there to ensure that it doesn't come at the cost of rapid transit on other corridors, but we ultimately need to balance the need for improved travel times, the need to encourage the best use of land to build the communities which best support desired lifestyles, and the need to build in every corner of the city.
Building a transit city is not just about light rail, not just about subways, and not just about urban design. It is a mesh of all three topics, and while the endless waltz of debate will likely never die, we must do all we can to resolve different visions of what transit and neighbourhoods on controversial corridors like Sheppard and Eglinton can realistically become.
Labels: GTTA plan, light rail, subways, urban design
Hurontario LRT & Urban Design PIC
I went to the Hurontario Rapid Transit / Urban Design public information centre at Brampton City Hall tonight, and found
Sean Marshall from Spacing hanging around his old stomping grounds. While there were very few people there, staff answered all of the questions asked with a lot of depth. They seemed genuinely interested in the suggestions we had to offer, both written and verbally. There was paper, pens and post-it notes for us to use, and it was always within arms' reach.
From the transit side of things, the decision was clearly between LRT and BRT, with the only uncertainty being how to deal with the narrow sections between Queen Street & Shoppers World, and between the QEW & Lakeshore. Going elevated might interfere with the urban design of the area, going underground might be costly, and traveling in mixed traffic might end in disaster. The City of Brampton is also looking at moving the Shoppers' World terminal closer to Main Street, which I take as an indication that they are striving for better. In addition, the project leader was very clear that there was no intention of making people transfer at municipal boundaries - another sign they are looking to provide a better customer experience.
From the urban design side of things, I got the sense that there was a real desire to build transit oriented development along the corridor in order to make Hurontario be more of a complete street. The slogan used was "21st Century Main Street", and many of the concepts presented reminded me of the lively main streets in small towns in Ontario. The only challenge will be how to urbanize the area between Steeles and Bristol, which is currently a mix of warehouses, vacant fields and offices setback fifty feet from the property line.
Overall, I think it was a great session, and I can only hope the Mississauga side presents the same vision to the public tomorrow.
Labels: brampton transit, light rail, mississauga transit, urban design
Progress on Transit City
While the Regional Transportation Plan is still on track for a fall release, previous funding announcements have given the green light to many transit projects across the GTA. Essentially, there are two classes to these projects. Fully funded projects, such as the Mississauga BRT and Brampton Acceleride have received most (if not all) of its funding, while EA funded projects, such as the Hamilton LRT lines and parts of Transit City, have the funding to move to detailed planning stages. We will have to wait and see how the RTP deals with these projects, as it could ratify, upgrade or provide alternatives to some of the proposed transit line. But, this uncertainty hasn't stopped the City of Toronto from moving forward on its plan to improve transit services across the city.
Among those these projects are the Sheppard East LRT, the Scarborough RT rehabilitation and expansion, the Don Mills LRT and the Waterfront West LRT. Here's a rundown of where the study for each project is and what options have left to be decided.
Sheppard East LRTThe city is moving ahead with a LRT line from Don Mills Road to Meadowvale Road, with stations spaced every 400-500 metres. This means that many stops will be eliminated, but the end-to-end ride will be much faster than the current bus route. The Sheppard bus will be completely eliminated, allowing resources to be deployed elsewhere, but the buses that currently serve Don Mills station will remain.
There are two options on the table for linking the Sheppard LRT with the Sheppard Subway. Both require tunneling, and both would have tunnels built to subway clearances.
"Option 3" calls for the LRT to go underground at Consumers Road, and stop at a double-length Don Mills Station platform. Passengers would transfer by walking further down the platform. This is the lower cost option, and has no drawbacks beside ensuring that a runaway subway train can be stopped before entering into the LRT section of the station.
"Option 5" calls for the subway to be extended to Consumers Road, and the LRT terminate on the surface, directly above the subway platform. This option has a higher price tag, but comes with some interesting pros and cons. The whole point of Transit City being an LRT project is to discourage disconnected spot of ultra-high density development around stations. The hope is that the relatively close station spacing will bring a constant string of medium density development, much like Queen Street. But, the area between Victoria Park and Highway 404 is a business park and a good place to develop a high-density area - so it may be wise to extend the subway as far as Victoria Park. But, many pro-LRT advocates worry that such an extension will bring calls for "just one more stop."
I think that an extension to Victoria Park has merit, but we need to know what the plan for Sheppard West is. If we are going to build an LRT from Yonge Street westward (as the official plan calls for), then we should convert the subway to LRT for a continuous journey - and not build any extensions.
Another aspect still under consideration is a branch to Scarborough Centre, either down Brimley or McCowan. I believe its a necessary connection, but both Brimley and McCowan have their pros and cons. More study is needed.
Scarborough RTIt's a pretty much guarantee that the Scarborough RT will be upgraded to the Bombardier ART Mk. II standard that has served Vancouver so well. This means higher capacity trains and the possibility of running them more frequently.
The extension of the Scarborough RT to Malvern Town Centre is already under consideration, and has been broken into two sections. Between McCowan and Markham Road, three choices are available. The first has the line follow Progress Avenue in its entirety, but this might mean moving McCowan Station. The second follows the abandoned railway corridor and Progress Avenue, while the third follows Highland Creek. I think the second option is best, as it only crosses the creek once, maintains McCowan station and puts a the proposed Bellamy station as close to Progress as possible.
The northern segment has four possible alignments, but each has issues. Option 1 runs up Progress and Markham Road to the CP Rail line, but runs through the front yards of some townhouses. Option 2 diverts to avoid these houses, but has significant backtracking on its way to the terminus. Option 3 takes the most direct route (the old railway corridor), but runs through the back yards of some homes. Option 4 follows the 401 and Neilson Road, but infringes on another Transit City project.
Option 3 could be viable, if the line runs through a trench when it passes close to the residences. It would result in the fastest journey and would place a station at Progress and Sheppard, where redevelopment potential exists. Option 4 serves more existing high-density development, and could reduce the need for the Scarborough-Malvern LRT north of U of T Scarborough, but would see a longer ride to the subway.
Nothing is currently planned beyond this extension, but the opportunity to extend the line in both directions exists. Eastward, Seaton can be served with an extension along the CP Rail corridor. This could serve trips to Scarborough, with downtown trips using GO services. Westward, there is the possibility to build the Eglinton-Crosstown line as an extension of the Scarborough RT. It would be elevated east of Laird and west of Weston Road, with a tunnel in between. Once at Renforth, a branch could head to Pearson Airport, while another branch could head to Mississauga City Centre.
Waterfront West LRTFrom Dufferin Street to Union Station, the Waterfront West LRT will run parallel to the Gardiner to Fort York Blvd, then will stick to city streets to the Air Canada Centre, where it will join the tunnel to Union Station. West from Dufferin Street, there are many options, and alternatives on options, to get to the Roncesvalles/King/Queen/Queensway intersection.
Among them, I believe that "Option 2" is the best alternative. From the area around Dufferin Loop, the LRT line would run along the embankment beside the railway corridor to a direct connection with the line heading westward along the Queensway. This would allow the 508 LAKE SHORE to be rerouted into Union Station. Combined with all day service and improved frequencies, this will solve the problems of spotty service west of Humber Loop. However, the variant of Option 2 still under consideration doesn't allow for cars southbound on Roncesvalles to head to Union Station. If the Jane LRT uses the railway corridor to terminate at Dundas West, as many have recommended, this missing link will be needed to bring the line into the core.
West of Humber Loop, there are long term plans to build a right-of-way along Lakeshore, in addition to a new Loop around Park Lawn. This will benefit the towers around Palace Pier, but more will be needed to improve the relationship the residents have with the TTC. One thing idea that has been floated is to build a right-of-way along Queensway to Sherway Gardens. From the 427 to the Humber River, Queensway is under-developed with relatively poor transit service. If Transit City is truly a redevelopment tool, then this stretch is where it will bear the most fruit.
Don Mills LRTThe Don Mills LRT line will begin at Steeles and travel to Overlea and Millwood - that much is certain. Beyond that, there are multiple options for getting to the subway and on to the downtown core.
The route most commonly associated with this line is down Pape to Pape station. This would serve the most people employment and businesses, but would require tunneling to avoid bad surface conditions. To bring this line into the core, trams could continue down Pape to the railway corridor, then stay on the railway corridor to Union Station or interact with the proposed transit line on Queens Quay East. Alternatively, the line could use Carlaw to enter the Portlands, roughly following the route of the 72A PAPE bus.
Another proposed route uses O'Connor and Broadview to reach the subway, and could be extended to the Portlands using the proposed Broadview extension. While most places along this route need to be tunneled, there are some places where an at-grade alignment could be built. This alignment serves fewer people than the Pape alignment, but could bring some improvements to the 505 DUNDAS and 504 KING streetcars (though it could also completely screw them up).
The final alignment is to use Millwood, the railway corridor and the Bayview Extension to reach Castle Frank station. This alignment could be built completely at the surface, but serves the fewest people and has to deal with a very difficult approach to Castle Frank. To continue into the core, the line could follow the route of the 65 PARLIAMENT bus to Queens Quay East.
Of all the options, I think the Pape alignment will bring the most benefit. It has more people, jobs and businesses than the other alignments, and using the railway corridor will offer significant savings than Broadview or Parliament. If the line is to be tunneled, then stations will be located at Cosburn and Mortimer. If on the surface, O' Connor could be added, but I think this is an important stop to have regardless of the alignment.
Overall, progress on Transit City appears to be moving along well, and I'm eagerly waiting to see the direction the city plans to take on the other lines. Could some of the lines be built to subway standard? I suppose they could, but not without downgrading other proposed lines to BRT - and there is ample evidence to suggest that LRT brings the investment we need to keep this city growing. Of course there are faults to the project, but no one can disagree that its the most ambition (and most likely to get built) transit project the city has seen in quite some time.
Labels: light rail, ttc, urban design
