[Glen]

You're comparing apples with oranges - TTC stats covers only one mode of transportation, when we already knew that there is significant growth in GO usage (as well as pedestrian and cycling).

AoD

I am comparing the TTC stats with TTC stats. Sorry but that is about as apples to apples as one can get. The growth in the core's population has far outstripped the anemic job growth. Unless these new residents were displacing other workers they will have to be commuting elsewhere. Looking at wards 20,27 and 28 combined, the stats show an alarming trend. Between 1989 and 2004 these wards combined had lost 26,404 employment positions (Toronto employment survey). Between 1991 and 2001 the percentage of residents in these wards whom commuted outside of the city to work increased by 14.3%. Seeing that they are going outside of the city, not just the core, it is safe to assume that it is by car, not public transit, bike or on foot.

The thrust of this thread is to discern if TTC utilization is near its maximum. Will Transit City attract more riders and at what cost? Or, is it dependant on other factors? Is this money better spent on regional transit and bike lanes?

 

[Whoaccio]

It wasn't even in the backroom. Layton and his downtown council allies openly and actively opposed the DRL on the grounds that it would bring additional development to the downtown core. All of Metro council in the 1980s, especially the downtown councillors, agreed that development should be funneled to the suburban town centres. Unfortunately, they had all the drawbacks of a 416 location (taxation) without the advantages of downtown (clustering, image, accessibility) and so the strategy wound up driving most new office development to the 905.

Something about this seems so unimaginable to me. How the hell could anyone think actively opposing infrastructure improvements downtown was a good idea? Part of me is sympathetic to the Metro idea of "town centers" (ideally served by RT). I still think it is better than Avenuization, but I just don't see how councilors could oppose development downtown. More specifically I don't see how downtown councilors could oppose growth downtown. Ridiculous. As much as people blast Miller for being a commie pinko, at least contemporary left-types understand that business growth isn't a bad thing. That is a major improvement in theory.

 

[unimaginative2]

People don't realize what a huge break Miller is with past progressives on Toronto council. The Layton element of Toronto city council was fiercely opposed to new development that would bring added "congestion" into the downtown core and push out residences. They didn't want a "corporate" downtown. It seems crazy now, but in those days there was at least a somewhat credible fear that office buildings would keep going up and destroy all of the city's unique mixed-use neighbourhoods. Eggleton was actually quite effective at leveraging that hostility to development by demanding major concessions to the public realm in exchange for permitting new office towers downtown. That's how we got the BCE Place galleria and the Cloud Garden park at Bay Adelaide. Miller's pragmatic enough to realize the cost of past policies, and without a massive office boom like the 80s, developers just aren't going to bother jumping through hoops to be allowed to build in the 416. They'll just build office parks in the 905.

A lot of it grew out of the admirable movements of the 1970s/Jane Jacobs, which criticized massive superblock developments of the sort that predominated in the financial district. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of the condos we've been building in recent years are much more detrimental to the urban fabric than the office developments ever were.

I don't think that suburban centres and avenuization are mutually exclusive. I think that it's a bit of a shame that the current downtown-driven council has abandoned the suburban centres entirely, seemingly for rather superficial, "Ew! It's suburban!" reasons. They make great hubs and serve as real centres of their surrounding communities, even if in the case of Scarborough they happen to be anchored by a mall. I happen to love North York Centre and find it to be the most underappreciated neighbourhood in the city. It's developed organically, it's packed with small independent businesses, and it's bustling and packed with pedestrians at all hours of the day and night. It has it's issues--most of the buildings are pretty hideous and its two block width is ridiculously artificial--but it's still a remarkable success. Avenues also have an enormous amount of potential. Pretty much everybody agrees that the most attractive streets in the city are the pedestrian-oriented, low-rise, transit-served arterial retail strips like Queen and Danforth. If we could actually build streets like that again, it would be a huge achievement. Unfortunately, that story about the Duke's Cycle reconstruction suggests that building codes and tax policies are serving to stymie those admirable planning goals.

 

[kettal]

I am comparing the TTC stats with TTC stats. Sorry but that is about as apples to apples as one can get. The growth in the core's population has far outstripped the anemic job growth. Unless these new residents were displacing other workers they will have to be commuting elsewhere. Looking at wards 20,27 and 28 combined, the stats show an alarming trend. Between 1989 and 2004 these wards combined had lost 26,404 employment positions (Toronto employment survey). Between 1991 and 2001 the percentage of residents in these wards whom commuted outside of the city to work increased by 14.3%. Seeing that they are going outside of the city, not just the core, it is safe to assume that it is by car, not public transit, bike or on foot.

Plenty of core workers walk to work. Many were employed downtown before and moved in to save themselves the commute. I can't see a single thing wrong with that.

You're right that Toronto's bureaucracy is still too anti-business, but that's not a TTC issue.

The thrust of this thread is to discern if TTC utilization is near its maximum. Will Transit City attract more riders and at what cost? Or, is it dependant on other factors? Is this money better spent on regional transit and bike lanes?

Pitting these one against the other is not constructive. We need bike lanes, we need regional transit, and we need local transit. It's like a three legged stool, if you break one leg, the thing is useless.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am comparing the TTC stats with TTC stats.

Only on your point about taking two decades to get back to where they were...and that has a lot to do with the Mike Harris induced decade of darkness. How about comparing TTC and GO ridership in the 416 to population growth in the 416.

Also, what about people walking and biking more? That's surely the most positive development for local transport ever.

 

[LAz]

I think this may be of interest...
... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_TTC_ridership_per_year

 

[MisterF]

Let's get some numbers into this conversation. Obvously GTA population is irrelevant when it comes to TTC ridership, it's the city's population that matters.

Toronto population, 1991: 2,275,771
Toronto population, 2006: 2,503,281

Toronto employment, 1989 peak: 1,350,000
Toronto employment, 2008: 1,309,300

So population has increased by 230,000 or so. Population growth is now entirely infill. Employment has been steadily rising but still hasn't reached the peak of the late 80s. GO Transit growth has to be taken into account as well; their annual ridership is in the 50 million range. Now if we're talking about the GTA you have to include all the GTA transit systems. Fairly recent ridership numbers for 905 cities can be found here.

 

[doady]

It is funny how some people like to twist the facts. 1988 saw a major recession, that is the real reason transit ridership declined so much since then. ALL transit systems saw ridership decline during this time. This is the same ridership decline that LRT activists have used to try to discredit the Ottawa BRT.

 

[kettal]

I happen to love North York Centre and find it to be the most underappreciated neighbourhood in the city. It's developed organically, it's packed with small independent businesses, and it's bustling and packed with pedestrians at all hours of the day and night.

If all our suburbs were like Willowdale & Newtonbrook, the GTA would be a much better place. Even low-density can be good if it's not designed by idiots.

 

[Glen]

Plenty of core workers walk to work. Many were employed downtown before and moved in to save themselves the commute. I can't see a single thing wrong with that.

Of course that has happened. But if they are now living so close to work that they no longer need the TTC then who are we expanding it for?

Pitting these one against the other is not constructive. We need bike lanes, we need regional transit, and we need local transit. It's like a three legged stool, if you break one leg, the thing is useless.

It is not pitting one against the other, it is a question as to where to best allocate tax dollars.

 

[GenerationW]

Let's get some numbers into this conversation. Obvously GTA population is irrelevant when it comes to TTC ridership, it's the city's population that matters.

Totally irrelevant? I can't agree with that. The growth of neighbouring municipalities such as Vaughan, Markham, Brampton and Mississauga must be at least partly relevant when discussing TTC ridership figures.

 

[Translude15]

That's really not true. Other than a few loopy 905 routes that serve high schools and shuffle seniors to the library, there aren't many routes in the GTA that aren't extremely well-used, if not overcrowded. The problem is not a car-dependent habit or the comfort and convenience of transit, it's the outright lack of transit.

As for comparing the GTA population to TTC stats, it's not very useful - the only fair thing to do is add 905/GO ridership to account for the larger percentage of people living in areas underserved by transit. Compared to 1989, I wonder how many more people 416ers are walking/cycling (the large increase in downtown-dwellers has probably done a lot for these two modes), or taking GO/905 routes

That's exactly my point though. A lack of transit within the region directly relates to inconvenience and an overall discomfort to the individual.

 

[grey]

Totally irrelevant? I can't agree with that. The growth of neighbouring municipalities such as Vaughan, Markham, Brampton and Mississauga must be at least partly relevant when discussing TTC ridership figures.

It's not totally irrelevant, but including the entire GTA population in TTC's ridership stats doesn't make sense. How many Mississauga residents drive to Kipling, park, and then hop on the subway the rest of the way to work?

This is the fundamental flaw in Glen's analysis. MisterF is correct. Either change the population figures from GTA to just the City of Toronto, or change the ridership statistics from TTC to all GTA public transit.

 

[Glen]

It's not totally irrelevant, but including the entire GTA population in TTC's ridership stats doesn't make sense. How many Mississauga residents drive to Kipling, park, and then hop on the subway the rest of the way to work?

Lets try the question with just Toronto data. If the city has gained 230,000 residents and since 1988 while maintaining a similar level of jobs, is there a limit on growth potential for the TTC?

This is the fundamental flaw in Glen's analysis. MisterF is correct. Either change the population figures from GTA to just the City of Toronto, or change the ridership statistics from TTC to all GTA public transit.

If traffic into the city, in particular the core, has decreased while the city (GTA) has increased in population that signals a problem. Toronto should be able to attract (visiting, shopping, hospitals, etc.) a reasonable protion of the growth in the GTA, and that should be reflected in to a degree in the TTC stats. If it decline in vehicle traffic is accounted for by an increase in GO usage and alternates the question remains. Is the potential for TTC ridership expansion near it maximum?

 

[kettal]

If it decline in vehicle traffic is accounted for by an increase in GO usage and alternates the question remains. Is the potential for TTC ridership expansion near it maximum?

There's no shortage of traffic in Toronto. That I can assure you.

Take a look at how many single-occupancy vehicles are going around the city. I'd say if 30% or more of them switched to transit (which can't now, due to capacity and reliability problems), then we can discuss the TTC having hit it's maximum potential. Right now? no.