Today Thu Fri
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on June 19, 2013
Clear
23°/11°
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on June 20, 2013
Clear
19°/13°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on June 21, 2013
Mostly Cloudy
21°/16°

8 Comments

news

Transit City and Transit Cities

20091123TRAN2.jpg
Transit City: the TTC’s plan to build a network of light rail, extending dedicated transit infrastructure to many of Toronto’s neighbourhoods that lack it, thereby increasing residents’ quality of life, reducing our collective environmental footprint, and redressing a major backlog of transit development. Transit Cities: the term applied at a symposium held last week to cities that don’t just have transit but integrate it properly into the urban landscape, making good on the promise that transit expansion seems to hold but on which it doesn’t always deliver. Designing Transit Cities was its name, and bringing planners, academics, advocates, and the public at large up to speed on the opportunities and pitfalls of transit expansion was its goal.
The day-and-a-half-long symposium, co-sponsored by the City of Toronto, the Canadian Urban Institute, the Cities Centre at the University of Toronto, the Toronto Society of Architects, and various transit agencies, brought in experts from around the world to outline the successes and failures they’d seen in other cities’ transit expansions, and extrapolate some lessons for Toronto. Panel discussions dealt with everything from intelligent planning to community advocacy, and the symposium managed to cover a lot more ground than such events often do. (Though, as local transit guru Steve Munro suggested on his blog, this ground was perhaps well-trod, a rediscovery of ideas that have been discussed for decades.)
Though the speakers came from a variety of backgrounds, some themes did emerge quite clearly, providing a consensus view on the relationship between transit planning and urban development.


20091123TRAN1.jpg

  • Transit helps everyone. It isn’t just those riding the rails, and the rockets, who stand to gain from transit development. Reducing the number of cars on the road improves our air quality and decreases congestion, benefits to all residents, whether they be walking, cycling, on transit, or yes, even driving.
  • The single most important shift we can make in our planning priorities is away from trying to move numbers of vehicles, and towards moving numbers of people. Our aim, fundamentally, shouldn’t be to help cars get around, it should be to help people do so. The effect of making this switch is to level the playing field for all modes of transit as a starting point (rather than the current state of affairs, in which cars are granted a certain automatic priority), and then build infrastructure and develop plans that are most efficient at getting people where they need to go. Cars are very bad at doing this, as they take up a huge amount of space per person (both on the roads and in parking), and so the upshot of this would be to favour modes of transit which, simply put, are much better at the job, taken for the population as a whole. Before people start shouting war on the car!, let us reiterate: cars are convenient for the individual, but horridly inefficient for large groups. This isn’t about having a hate-on for the private automobile but wanting to keep the city as a whole sane.
  • Transit doesn’t breed other kinds of development on its own: transit lines need to be planned, and planned well, if they are to spur growth and become integrated into the communities through which they run. This involves both functional considerations (like how far apart you space stations, and zoning the land around stations for mixed-use development which will make the surrounding areas worth visiting) and aesthetic ones (since nobody will linger and benefit from the developments that spring up if they aren’t pleasant to use). Transit-oriented development, in other words, isn’t just about increasing density and curbing sprawl, it is about creating vital, livable neighbourhoods.
  • Transit is a socio-economic equalizer. People of limited means rely on it for their livelihood, accessing services, and participating in the life of the city. One of the great boons of transit is that it gives people with lower incomes the chance to access opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise be able to reach. One of the great dangers of transit development is gentrification, as property values in poorer neighbourhoods often shoot up as soon as new transit infrastructure goes in. The Transit City lines run through or near all of Toronto’s Priority Areas, with the intention, in part, of spurring their development. There need to be safeguards in place to ensure that current residents don’t simply get displaced in the process.

Toronto has a great deal of work ahead. With billions of dollars still needed for Transit City, not to mention an ongoing dearth of stable funding for the TTC’s operating budget, our ambitions are right now far outstripping our capacity. It will take many more conversations like the ones held at Designing Transit Cities, and concerted efforts by planners, politicians, architects, and engaged citizens, if any of them are to be realized.
We will give the last word to Paul Bedford, former City of Toronto chief planner, and a panellist on the opening night of the symposium. “It should be possible to build a city and a region where you can go your whole life without owning a car and not feel deprived.”
Photos by Michael Chrisman/Torontoist.

Comments

  • http://torontoist.is.not.nickwarzin.com/blog tapesonthefloor

    Very well put as always, Hamutal. Thanks for the article.

  • http://undefined mark.

    Excellent article that outlines the main issues facing transit in Toronto – well done!
    After the first night’s public event at council chambers, I left thinking that I didn’t really agree with much of anything anyone said. I felt there was far too much emphasis on regions, growth and expansion (not just for Toronto but also for the other ‘transit cities’ discussed). I feel that there has been far too much emphasis on services for the suburbs and not enough on providing ‘good’ transit in the core. I fear that if Toronto continues to expand its service outwards with new infrastructure and new linkages to surrounding transit systems, it will (among other things) encourage further sprawl rather than increasing density and put further strain on an already under-funded operating budget.
    Public transit in Toronto from the late 1800s to the 1950s covered its own operating costs through fare collection. Indeed, it was a private company until the 1920s. But when the Toronto Transportation System became the Toronto Transit Commission in 1954, the Metro government began subsidizing the operating budget so that the system could expand and serve the (then) suburbs. The province shared 50% of this operating budget subsidy (in other words, 75-80% of the operating budget is covered by fares, the remaining 25-20% needs to be ‘subsidized’ and the province covered half of this deficit). Of course, we all know that in the late 1990s the Harris government ended the province’s contribution. Yet, they built the Sheppard Line…
    I find it curious that the current provincial government is still willing to provide large sums of money for capital projects, such as the $9 billion (plus?) for Transit City, and has yet to re-instate it’s partial subsidy of the operating budget. I think that re-instating the provincial subsidy for the operating budget should be a higher priority than ‘capital projects’ that further expand the system. Many feel that the operating budget is far too high (most of it goes to wages), so I think it would be a good idea if the province commissioned a report on the operating budget (showing how it’s changed historically, how it compares to other cities, etc.). This report would, of course, be public. If the report found that wages are, in fact, too high, being mis-managed, etc., then it could put ‘conditions’ on it providing a subsidy to operating budget. However, if the report found that there isn’t any ‘waste’ then it really doesn’t have an excuse to not fund the operating budget (as is the practice everywhere else).

  • http://undefined Green Sulfur

    1) The province demanded the city show that the TTC is efficient through a report the province commissioned in approx. 2005. The TTC passed the test.
    2) Political reality is this: the province doesn’t look like a hero if it just keeps operating what’s already here and upping the operating subsidy is too expensive. New capital work is about looking like good things are getting done and, of course, building the government’s the all important legacy.

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    I am with you on the fact that the number one issue/ priority is reinstating the provincial subsidy to the TTC.

  • http://undefined mark.

    Thanks for the reply – do you know the name of the report or the author? I searched but couldn’t find it.
    As for point 2, I agree but it’s not something that can’t be overcome. Sure gov’ts like to announce (and re-announce!) big projects, but there’s got to be some political capital gained in providing consistent, stable funding. Though perhaps that would appear too paternalistic…
    I’m surprised no one has taken issue with my argument for good public transit in the ‘core’ at the expense of serving the suburbs. I thought someone would argue that without transit serving the suburbs there would be more cars coming into the core..

  • http://www.flickriver.com/photos/doitintheroad/ dcooper

    Wonderful article. This city needs to focus on livability – that’s something that can’t simply be imported and constructed, or fixed with another ill-conceived streetcar plan.
    I’m having a hard time trying to figure out who is actually the TTC’s side these days. It seems to me they don’t have any public voice. The more I read, hear, and experience in regard to the TTC, the more I get this nagging idea to start a TTC lobby…

  • http://www.twitter.com/vicdezen Vic De Zen

    This is a nice article and a good idea. It’s just hard to side with the TTC and their plannings when they constantly ask for more money. Whether it’s for their employees, who already have tremendous benefits and superior starting salaries than most in this province, or for maintenance purposes. When they get it, there is nothing to show they are putting the money to good use. I’m all for extending the lines to the ghettoized forgotten locations in the city. They should have done this a long time ago really,but maybe they should focus on the current infrastructure they are currently struggling to maintain rather than focus on expanding.

  • http://undefined mark.

    Does anyone have any reference to this report Green Sulfur mentions? Even some keywords that might help me find it?