Subways, Subways, Subways: Enough already!

A picture of what is across the street from the Greenwood Subway Station. Copyright Google, 2012.

The big provincial news this week was, of course, the resignation of Dalton McGuinty as both leader of the provincial Liberal Party, and Premier of Ontario. I have a few opinions as to this move (particularly the decision to prorogue the legislature), but the one that bothered me more was Tim Hudak's proposal to shift provincial funding to "subways"... when the funds became available.

If you haven't been paying attention to the transit debate in Toronto, it went something like this:

1) March, 2007: Mayor David Miller gets council approval and provincial funding to create "Transit City", a series of light rail transit (LRTs) lines that would cross the Toronto.
2) December, 2010: Rob Ford is elected as mayor, declares subways the only option for Toronto, and cancels Transit City. He believes that the private sector will help the city build them (he refuses to raise taxes to pay for them), pushing for the provincial money that was to go to Transit City to instead be diverted to construct subways. It turns out that the private sector is not a source of funding, and is not knocking down the doors to give the city billions of dollars.
3) February, 2012: Karen Stintz, former Ford ally and Chair of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), rejects Mayor Ford's insistence that subways are the only solution. Gets a majority of council on side, and resurrects most of Transit City, redirecting the provincial funds toward it.
 That's basically the summary without all the hyperbole and infighting that went on between the creation of Transit City and now. It was funny (in a morbid sort of way) when council had to slap Ford down for his fantastic (but not realistic) transit dreams. The fact that Tim Hudak is once again resurrecting a debate that is now over 5 years old is not funny; it's tragic, especially during a time when Toronto is studying options for raising funds to pay for new transit expansion. Transit Blogging superstar Steve Munro has a takedown on Hudak's plan that is more eloquent than anything I could muster, so let me just throw one basic fact at Mr. Hudak and the pro-subway crowd.

You need sufficient population and job density to make subways "worth it".

In a world of fantasy and unlimited funds, subways would be attractive. In real life, you need to justify the costs of building (and importantly: maintaining!) a subway over using other modes of transit (such as buses). The TTC reported once that a population/job density of about 100 jobs/residents per hectare were needed to justify a subway (blown up, about 10,000 jobs/residents in a square kilometre). Here's what Toronto's density roughly looks like on a map (the data is about ten years old, but I suspect this map wouldn't look radically different if performed with 2011 data):

Modified image from Hess et. al's "Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe", 2007.

I have no doubt that the relative densities of various tracts has changed since this data was published (especially given the condo boom) but I expect that you'd find that the vast majority of construction still occurs along the subway lines. At the very least, we can probably consider any area that has at least 80 residents/jobs per hectare to be a "viable" candate for a subway.

Let's look at the image again, with any area that does not have at least 80 people/jobs a hectare removed:

Modified image from Hess et. al's "Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe", 2007.

A few comments after considering the above:

1) Most areas that "deserve" a subway already have one. The biggest exception is the stretch roughly along where Queen Street would be; they have a streetcar line. These areas "connect" with one another, to ensure that there is roughly enough people on any given point to justify a subway stop. The "black" areas that aren't near one largely exist in a sea of white; it's hard to justify building an entire line to reach a small island of density.

2) Zoning must follow transit investment. There are several large areas along the existing subway line that don't "deserve" to have a subway based on the surrounding density. My biggest pet hobby to complain about is the Danforth line. This is what the intersection of the Danforth near Greenwood looks like:

The Woodbine/Danforth intersection. Copyright Google, 2012.

I have nothing against the people who live near here, but for having a major piece of infrastructure in close proximity, the best that the intersection has is a three story bank? This is a lesson for those with a "if we build it, they will come" mentality. Subways are not a ticket to investment simply by their existence; there are many other factors which determine whether they "intensify" the surrounding area, particularly the zoning (The recent Avenues and Mid-Rise study may allow an 8 to 9 story building along this section of the Danforth. Before that, up to about 4 stories were allowed).

Even Rob Ford's cheerleader, Gordon Chong, who tried to make the case for private investment, admitted that getting the "private" sector involved would require allowing buildings that are 30 to 40 stories high nearby.

3) A lot of areas don't meet a subway "threshold", but other forms of transit, such as streetcars, LRT, Bus Rapid-Transit (BRT), etc. might work. Not only will they suffice to meet projected transit demand, they'll also be cheaper to build and to operate compared to a subway, and that's a clear win for the taxpayer. And these transit modes will bring investment, as long as the zoning is there. Consider that Queen Street East currently has more new buildings proposed and under construction compared to the Danforth; there's a multitude of factors of why this is, but chief amongst them is that it's simply easier to build something taller than six stories along Queen East.

And finally, enough with demonizing St. Clair West's streetcar. It seems every time someone wants to trumpet subways, they claim how this particular line is a textbook example on how above surface vehicles can ruin neighborhoods. I'm not claiming that the project was flawless, but its issues were largely due to neighbourhood opposition, political meddling, and unforeseen circumstances. You can't judge all LRTs to be horrible based off a single line, especially one that had little to do with the LRT (and by all accounts, it's made the streetcar much more reliable and efficient).

Should subways be off the table in transit discussions? I'm almost tempted to say "yes"; many Torontonians have a love-affair with subways that blinds them to the reality of their city's situation (both physically and financially), envisioning some weird Toronto where everyone lives next door to underground rail. And some politicians, such as Tim Hudak, will play to that daydream in order to get their votes. And because of this, we continue to spin our tires on actually building transit.