The Renderings Thread

[Marcanadian]

I used to be obsessed with comparing our subway network to others, but then I realized it's a pretty pointless exercise unless you take several considerations into account. Population, population density, age, level of government funding, and the size of the city are all really important factors when looking at building subways. Sure, we can say we don't have as much subway as Oslo, Rotterdam, Madrid, Vienna or Munich, but then again we can say we have more subway than Rio de Janeiro, Frankfurt, Prague, Athens, Brussels, Buenos Aires and Rome. It's fun to compare the cities, but unless you do solid research to find out the limits of subway expansion in these cities, it's all a bit pointless.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Don't forget though that Valencia and Copehhagen both have commuter/metro hybrids.

Alright then. In regards to subways, if we want to rival the Madrids and Hong Kongs of this world our subway would have to triple in size. Zeroing in on an oversight doesn't change the the reality that our subway system is much too small for the needs of Toronto.

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

Again, the reason for this is that both Sydney and Melbourne are much more suburban cities than Toronto, with vast areas of single family dwellings. Toronto's subway system focused much development in clusters along its lines. If you have much more suburban development and no subway, then you develop more intercity rail. It would be very interesting to see an overlay map of TTC plus the Go rail system to compare to that of Montreal, or Vancouver. We never seem to compare intercity rail in Canadian cities... only subways.

Toronto's subway and GO Train are massively under built. It's probably more constructive to acknowledge that we have a deficit. Explaining away these deficiencies due to this or that doesn't help us move forward at all.

[Taller, Better]

If we want to rival Madrid, perhaps we should adopt the European Union as a sugar daddy to pump kabillions into our system!

Originally Posted by Marcanadian

It's fun to compare the cities, but unless you do solid research to find out the limits of subway expansion in these cities, it's all a bit pointless.

How true. I suspect many of the statistics and charts we have seen so far compare apples to oranges.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

If we want to rival Madrid, perhaps we should adopt the European Union as a sugar daddy to pump kabillions into our system!

How about we just start a proper dialogue between municipalities and the Federal government about a more workable division between taxation powers and services that each are responsible for. That's the problem, not a lack of funds.

[Taller, Better]

Ah! So all we need to do is "start" a proper dialogue! Who knew that the reason we have been starved these past 15 years is just for lack of dialogue? Here I thought it was down to senior governments being completely, utterly unwilling to be seen giving tax dollars back to the Centre of the Universe, but I am happy to hear that it is all an easily remedied situation! No doubt the Rest of Canada outside of the GTA will be happy to chip in as long as we discuss it with them.

[Marcanadian]

Originally Posted by isaidso

How about we just start a proper dialogue between municipalities and the Federal government about a more workable division between taxation powers and services that each are responsible for. That's the problem, not a lack of funds.

We're going to need consistent, ongoing operating funding for these subways you're asking for. Building a subway in low-density corridors like Finch and Sheppard would be a disaster for the TTC's finances unless they receive help from other levels of government. This is why I don't want subways on these roads. The density isn't there and the projections indicate it won't be for decades. It costs $8 per person to keep the Sheppard subway operating. If we repeat that again, be prepared to lose several bus routes.

I've said before that it's embarrassing that we don't have a National Transit Strategy. If we could expect stable funding from government sources, subway building would be much more realistic. But we can't make all these plans around subways hoping that they'll chip in sooner or later.

[Taller, Better]

That will never happen in this country, where funding gets handed out regionally and strategically to obtain maximum voting for the party in power. No one gives a rats ass what the GTA wants, because they politely vote for parties like the Conservatives even though they get sweet-tweet in return. Toronto was so focused on blaming Miller for all its problems that it never occurred to most people that our real enemies were our senior governments. The GTA and Ontario in general are the Sleeping Giant that hasn't quite figured out yet that if they voted in a bloc they could get anything they wanted handed to them on a silver platter.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Alright then. In regards to subways, if we want to rival the Madrids and Hong Kongs of this world our subway would have to triple in size. Zeroing in on an oversight doesn't change the the reality that our subway system is much too small for the needs of Toronto.

Fixating on extreme examples like Madrid doesn't change the facts either, and the fact is that Toronto is not as far behind average in terms of rapid transit relative to population as these extreme examples may suggest. It's like someone making $40,000/yr being hopelessly discouraged at how far behind they are compared to everyone else when they're only comparing themselves to the wealthy making 6 and 7 figures. The reality of course is that they are below average, they should do something about it, but they're not below average by a significant enough margin to inspire such hyperbole. Toronto could stand to double its system. At the very least needs to increase it by 50%. But having the system expanded by 4x-5x (unless we're talking about BART/S-Tog type hybrids) would just put us in the unfortunate situation of being massively over built and having huge amounts of taxpayer money wasted on providing transportation services that could be done much more cheaply.

Complacency isn't constructive, but hyperbole and extreme examples aren't constructive either.

[Taller, Better]

I don't think "complacency" has been our problem, though; as you point out it is one of lack of funding. We want better, but like every other metro system in the world, we cannot build subways without help from senior governments. In the past, there was a simplistic finger pointing at Miller, when of course the true enemy is our senior governments using our tax money as a slush fund. My whole point is that it is useless to simply wallow in pity by imagining we have the worst transit system in Canada or North America when clearly we do not.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Marcanadian

We're going to need consistent, ongoing operating funding for these subways you're asking for. Building a subway in low-density corridors like Finch and Sheppard would be a disaster for the TTC's finances unless they receive help from other levels of government.

Who said anything about building subways on Finch or Sheppard? I'm not suggesting that you're doing this, but there seems to be this common reaction that if you're for more subways that means you support Sheppard and Finch getting built first.

The DRL, Queen, and Eglinton must come first.

Originally Posted by Marcanadian

I've said before that it's embarrassing that we don't have a National Transit Strategy. If we could expect stable funding from government sources, subway building would be much more realistic. But we can't make all these plans around subways hoping that they'll chip in sooner or later.

Agree, that's why things have to change. We can't go on like this any more. We don't have a National Transit Strategy so we'll have to force Ottawa to re-negotiate taxation/service responsibilities in this country.

[Marcanadian]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Who said anything about building subways on Finch or Sheppard? I'm not suggesting that you're doing this, but there seems to be this common reaction that if you're for more subways that means you support Sheppard and Finch getting built first.

The DRL, Queen, and Eglinton must come first.

The only subway that would make sense from a density point of view is the DRL, running along Queen. You could make a case for Eglinton I suppose, but since you said 'subways' in the plural form, I figured you must have meant Finch and Sheppard as well.

I agree that the DRL needs to be built. The DRL should be built before anything goes in on Sheppard, so that the Yonge line isn't fed even more people.

[isaidso]

Ford does not represent the pro subway segment of the electorate. The original DRL proposal did not run along Queen, it looped south from Union Station both east and west, and then looped north on both sides till it hit Bloor. I still believe that's the best route due to the residential population growth along our lake front, the need for a stop at Skydome, and another one at Exhibition/BMO Field. To the east, similar arguments can be made for St. Lawrence, the Esplanade, and the Distillery.

In addition to the DRL, there should be a Queen subway that continues west along the Queensway and east to the Beaches. We need both not a compromise DRL on Queen Street. The Roncesvalles Avenue Alignment is optimal to give Roncesvalles proper service. Eglinton should come in conjunction with the DRL and Queen can come 3rd (running through Parkdale and making the Galt-Weston option unnecessary). These 3 will likely not be the end of it either. It would be 15-20 years till we could build all 3 and Toronto would likely need other lines by then. Toronto needs all 3 lines.


Original Planned Route for the Downtown Relief Line

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Fixating on extreme examples like Madrid doesn't change the facts either, and the fact is that Toronto is not as far behind average in terms of rapid transit relative to population as these extreme examples may suggest.

I picked Madrid on purpose and quite predictably you zeroed in on the detail rather than the message. What I'm getting from all of this is you're in the camp that believes we have sufficient rail infrastructure then? If that's the case, I'll leave you to it.

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by isaidso

What I'm getting from all of this is you're in the camp that believes we have sufficient rail infrastructure then? If that's the case, I'll leave you to it.

NO ONE is in the camp that we have sufficient rail infrastructure. That camp does not exist, outside of Stephen Harper's caucus. Failing to jump on the "We're Number Last" bandwagon by pointing out that statistics are not comparing apples to apples, or pointing out the impossibility of funding does not mean anyone is content not to get more infrastructure. It just means that a bit of reality is being injected into the fantasy, that's all.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I picked Madrid on purpose and quite predictably you zeroed in on the detail rather than the message. What I'm getting from all of this is you're in the camp that believes we have sufficient rail infrastructure then? If that's the case, I'll leave you to it.

I believe in a happy medium. I don't think transit should be starved like what's happening in Toronto now, nor do I think money should be squandered like what's happening in Madrid now. Ideally, the system should have a route length from 110km to 140km, compared to the current 70km. I just balked at the suggestion the system needs to be quadrupled which would equate to over 270km of metro routes, unless of course most of that was in the form of S-Tog/S-Bahn/BART type surface rapid transit which would be a fraction of the cost of expanding the system based on the current paradigm.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

I don't think "complacency" has been our problem, though; as you point out it is one of lack of funding. We want better, but like every other metro system in the world, we cannot build subways without help from senior governments. In the past, there was a simplistic finger pointing at Miller, when of course the true enemy is our senior governments using our tax money as a slush fund. My whole point is that it is useless to simply wallow in pity by imagining we have the worst transit system in Canada or North America when clearly we do not.

I'd say complacency may be a big part of the funding problems you describe in that federal and provincial governments have become very comfortable with their funding games and have not come to realise how important cities and their infrastructure are. This is an issues in almost every province to one degree or another, but in Ontario it seems to be acute with neither the federal nor provincial governments seeming to recognise the importance of a center like the GTA/Golden Horseshoe. The area has a good quarter of the entire country's population, a similar percentage as what Paris, London, and Tokyo have of their respective national populations, yet Ottawa and Queen's part seem fairly unconcerned.

[Sky_Is_The_Limit]

Sorry to change the subject somewhat, but what is the density and total population of Toronto's inner city? By inner I mean the (rough) 10km ring that surrounds the downtown area.

[monkeyronin]

Originally Posted by Sky_Is_The_Limit

Sorry to change the subject somewhat, but what is the density and total population of Toronto's inner city? By inner I mean the (rough) 10km ring that surrounds the downtown area.

In Toronto "inner city" typically refers to the 97 sqkm former city boundaries (so a little under a 10 km radius), which would now have about 750,000 people (so ~7,700 people/sqkm).

If we were to expand to a roughly 10 km radius that would also include York and East York which would bring the population up to about a million in 140 sqkm (~7,100 people/sqkm).

[Taller, Better]

oh oh.... I do hope this is not leading to one of the old Aussie-Canuck dogfights about density/suburbiana. Those subjects got pummelled to death and back again about 230 times during the old City vs City days.

[Sky_Is_The_Limit]

Nope, not my intention

I know that Toronto is considerably more dense than Sydney, but the point of me asking is that I think Toronto is potentially a good example of the route Sydney should be taking. Rather than an increasingly sprawling city that engulfs greenfield sites with limited focus on urban infill, we should be concentrating on developing major corridors with medium and high density residential that eases our chronic housing shortage and subsequent affordability issues. It would also be cheaper to provide new and improved infrastructure for the existing urban footprint than to build roads and rail from new housing estates in greenfield sites and then trying to funnel them all into the inner city for work and leisure.

[Taller, Better]

One of the best things Toronto ever did was building the first subway in Canada. This channelled denser development along nodes of the subway. It was an extremely effective way of maintaining a denser city, and preventing a lot of suburban flight. We've lost momentum in subway expansion during the past generation due to lack of funding, but we are striving to do the best with what funds we have available to us.