“The problem,” he says, “is that the downtown core, where a lot of tall buildings are being constructed, is not an area I would want to live in. It is not an issue of height and density, but of neighbourhood quality.”

This quote is from Peter Clewes, superstar residential condominium architect in Toronto. The fact that he is discouraged from living in one of his own projects speaks volumes.

The condominium design market is ever-evolving in Toronto, and five years ago the podium + tower design (a.k.a. the “Vancouver Model”) was embraced almost to the point of exclusivity. Planners, developers and architects are still realizing that there is more to the design of a tower than just the form:

“People don’t really look up and take notice of tall buildings,” said Mr. Witt. That’s why he and Mr. Clewes told the panel that it’s usually the first 50 feet of a tower that really matter. Bruce Kuwabara of KPMB Architects, whose recent projects include the TIFF Bell Lightbox, concurred. “It’s not about height, but how you organize tall buildings vertically,” he said.

So the podium is still crucial to the street-level perception of a tower, but it is now about subtle design cues and populating the podium with a good mix of uses:

The solution lies partly architectural designs that complement pre-existing structures, Mr. Clewes added.

If developers are building a tower in a commercial neighbourhood such as Bloor Street east of St. George, he suggested designing a building that fits into the continuous street wall. On the other hand, Charles Street, which is on a more residential zone, requires different treatment with landscaped lawns, he said.

Some interesting discussion points contained within the article. Read it here.

Whatever you think of the great LRT vs. Subway debate– I happen to think it’s completely overblown– it might be fair to say that developers (and buyers) are speculating based on future transit plans. With Rob Ford still promising to build a subway with private money, and TTC Commissioner Karen Stintz vowing to use federal money to extend the subway to Victoria Park, perhaps developers are smart to build here.

Should they be? Are they speculating on future LRT or Subway? Are there other factors at work here? Sheppard is a major transportation corridor even without higher-order transit, as the first major arterial road north of the 401. Because of this, every resident along Sheppard has easy access to the most important highway in Ontario and perhaps the country. The fact that the highway struggles to bring anyone to their destination in a timely manner is of little importance. It is the concept of the amenity, not the quality of the amenity itself. That said, there are other amenities on Sheppard Avenue East, including nearby Fairview Mall and the existing Sheppard subway.

Here are the condominium projects that I know of at this point:

• Monarch Group’s Heron’s Hill site (2 towers)
• Tridel’s Alto at Atria (2 phases)
• Remington’s 8 Chichester (affordable housing joint-build)
• Gemterra’s LOVE Condominiums

It remains to be seen if all of these residents can be accommodated on the already-congested Sheppard Avenue East. Will new residents create a renewed push for higher-order transit? Will new congestion limit the ability of developers to sell units here?

Whatever the case, Sheppard Avenue East’s under-capitalized lots and great amenities likely means there are more projects to come.

Ms. Berardinetti made traffic congestion her main campaign issue in the recent municipal election, which may or may not have delivered her a victory over the incumbent, Adrian Heaps. Like Rob Ford, she feels that her victory symbolizes widespread local agreement with her issue of choice (for Ford, it was subways vs. “streetcars”). Perhaps this is so– but I can think of other reasons. (“Traffic congestion is bad” is to local political rhetoric as “God Bless America” is to American political rhetoric). Activist Dave Meslin has a good perspective on Pharmacy and Birchmount lanes here. (Unfortunately his very reasonable amendments were not adopted by committee members.)

From www.ibiketo.ca

Certainly, errors were made in the way in which the bike plan has been implemented in Toronto. This is especially true in areas where residents are skeptical of their worth on high-speed, high-traffic arterial roads. Too often, lanes were built without connections to other cycling infrastructure, or built in short spurts where works crews were already working on the road. (It is also a result of a city unwilling to fully commit to true cycling infrastructure, like bike boxes and separated lanes).

Ms. Berardinetti’s main beef with the bike lanes seems to be that they were built with a “lack of community consultation”. Yet yesterday, fellow councillor John Parker (a member of the PWIC, who moved the motion to remove the Jarvis bike lanes) wrote a blog post for the Toronto Star’s cycling portal to justify his decision regarding Jarvis. In it, he writes:

Since 2001 the city of Toronto has had a comprehensive bike plan that envisions a network of bike lanes throughout the downtown area. It was drawn up after widespread consultation [emphasis mine] and was prepared by the city’s transportation services department together with Marshall Macklin Monaghan, one of Canada’s leading engineering firms.

For one councillor, it appears that consultation on the Toronto Bike Plan was sufficient (Jarvis lanes are not in the bike plan– hence Mr. Parker was using the Bike Plan as justification to remove the lanes). For Ms. Berardinetti, the fact that the Birchmount and Pharmacy bike lanes were planned from 2001 and finally painted in 2008 is, it would seem, irrelevant. That City staff have found that the Pharmacy and Birchmount bike lanes have had no effect on local traffic (pg. 15) is also lost on Ms. Berardinetti.

Pharmacy & Birchmount, the first bike lanes listed in the Bike Plan for Scarborough

The costs for removing these lanes is estimated by staff to be $210 000. That may not seem like much in a budget of $9-billion, but in Rob Ford’s Toronto, every penny counts, and is counted (supposedly). Ms. Berardinetti is hoping that the bike lane removal can be synchronized with pending road repairs, therefore resulting in no additional cost– however, the repairs are not proposed for the entire length of the lanes. If this synchronization fails, the councillor will have to explain to her constituents (“taxpayers” in the verbiage of the day) why she wants the city to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove infrastructure. She might also have to explain how her previous commitment to sharrows, in place of bike lanes on Birchmount and Pharmacy, fell off the agenda. This from the previously-linked Toronto Sun article:

“As for those bike lanes, rather than paint them over immediately, she wants to tackle them when the roads are resurfaced.

When that work happens, Berardinetti said she wants to see the dedicated bike lanes removed and shared lane pavement markings (sharrows) painted within the car lanes.

“I’m not against bike lanes,” said Berardinetti, an avid cyclist. “They had a mandate of laying down so much (bike lane) tread a year instead of having a concrete plan.”"

Sharrows, while problematic, seem like a compromise here (though it still does not make a whole lot of sense to remove bike lane for sharrows). Will Ms. Berardinetti remember her previous musings? Or will council decide to kill an already-built portion of Toronto`s Bike Plan?

PWIC’s decision goes to Council on July 12-13.

Thanks to the internet and modern technology, I was able to figure out what the most efficient way downtown would be. I also considered the safety factor and the amount of riding on trails vs. roadways I was comfortable with. After some consideration, I came up with this route.

You will notice that about half my ride was on Don Mills Road, essentially a hilly six-lane north-south highway. I studied some of the ravine trails, as well as the Toronto Cycling Map, but I found most of the connections to be complicated and a bit out of the way (further complicated by the fact that the Leaside Rail Trail is not yet complete– a key connection for this route). Hence I decided to take a risk on Don Mills, with the knowledge that there are “HOV”/Priority curb lanes (meaning only taxis, bicycles, motorcycles, buses and cars with 3+ occupants can use it). It should be noted that these lanes are only in effect during rush hours (7am-10am and 3pm-7pm, Monday to Friday).

The curbside priority lanes on Don Mills Road (Google StreetView capture)

I started out from my home around 5:30pm, meaning the priority lanes were in effect. For the most part, riding along Don Mills was not too bad– cars respected the priority lane and traffic came in bursts from stoplights. Though I would not take my teenage siblings for a ride along Don Mills due to the safety factor, it was efficient and usable enough for me. The only complaints I have would be the large potholes, sewer grates and aggressive taxi drivers that made me uncomfortable at select points.

Following Don Mills from Sheppard all the way down to its unceremonious end at the Don Valley Parkway, I made the mistake of not turning off Don Mills at the Ontario Science Centre. Don Mills south of Overlea Boulevard becomes a four-lane undivided expressway, with cars racing down the hill towards the Don Valley Parkway at speeds upwards of 80 km/h. South of Overlea Boulevard you also lose the priority lane, and so you are squeezed up against the curb (no sidewalks on the west side of Don Mills, either). Finally, at the foot of a long hill, I found the entrance to the Lower Don Trail system that I had identified on my computer at home. However, that entrance (mostly for cars) was a dangerous left turn for a cyclist to make. I was stopped at the side of the road for a good 3 minutes, waiting for a suitable gap in the four lanes of traffic– but it was far too difficult. Fortunately, I rode 100m further south and there I found an entrance to the trail. Safe and sound, off the wild Don Mills Road.

The Lower Don trail is wonderful. Mostly flat and a suitable width for two-way traffic, I zoomed downtown on the second leg of my journey. I saw all sorts of people on bicycles– mid-aged gearheads, families with children, elderly couples, and casual cyclists. While the trail was busy, not once did I get stuck behind pedestrians or joggers while waiting to pass. My only complaint on this portion of the trip were the number of portions where the trail narrowed significantly– especially a portion where it appeared an embankment for the DVP was being rehabilitated. A narrow two-way trail and construction fencing made for some danger.

I was also struck at how the straightened portion of the Don River had the potential to be just like, if not better than, the Rideau Canal in Ottawa. As I cycled, I looked to my left and saw a neighbourhood (Corktown) full of old brick warehouses and shiny new condominiums peering over the DVP towards the Don. It occurred to me that if it weren’t for the tangle of infrastructure (the DVP ramps, rail line, hydro corridor), the chain-link fencing, rusty wall along the Don, and the non-landscaped foliage, this would be a tourist magnet.

Finally, after some confusing detours through the under-renovation East Bayfront area, I reached my destination– Sherbourne Common and Sugar Beach. I cannot write enough about how brilliant these new public spaces are (and Sherbourne Common isn’t even finished yet!). The parks offered brilliant new views of the Toronto skyline and out to the Harbour. While the incomplete Common was not very busy, Sugar Beach was bustling with kids playing in the splashpad, a couple taking wedding photos, hipster women reading books, and groups of people leisurely sitting and chatting. A brand-new restaurant just opened in the Corus Quay building had an enormous patio that has yet to be discovered by mainstream Toronto. As a planner, I really appreciate this type of city-building– creating well-designed public spaces first, and letting the private investment follow.

Sherbourne Common. (My photo)

After a half-hour respite on the beach, I set out on my way back. Knowing the first half of my trip would be flat (contrary to the second half), I really pushed my speed on the trail. I found the trail that took me up to the Ontario Science Centre rather than trying to battle the hill on Don Mills. Still, I knew I would have to conquer a massive hill coming out of the valley, and so I did, up from the Science Centre’s service yard. I made it about three-quarters of the way up before my legs gave out.

Long hill at Ontario Science Centre (Google StreetView capture)

After a five-minute rest, I set out up Don Mills Road, without the safety of the rush-hour priority lanes. However, traffic was light which allowed me some relaxed riding. As I struggled up the last big hill to cross over the 401, my legs cramped up. I got off my bike, walked the rest of the hill, and stopped briefly to enjoy the view. A ride I will surely do again.

From Don Mills bridge over the 401, looking west. (My photo)

Stephen Harper did what he had to do: he stayed mostly calm in his defence of his government’s record, and looked the most “Prime Ministerial” out of the four (as he should– he’s the only one that has been PM). Jack Layton had it fairly easy as the leader of the third party– able to attack the Liberals for supporting the Conservatives numerous times (even though not supporting them would have meant bringing down the government) and attacking the Conservatives for everything else. Gilles Duceppe was his usual obnoxious self, in his 15th debate, cracking jokes about Harper answering questions from the public and talking as if he represented all of Quebec. The increasing irrelevancy of having a separatist leader in a federal debate should be discussed. Perhaps the consortium that makes the rules of the debate should consider changing it so that only leaders of parties that have a minimum number of candidates in each province should be allowed to participate.

Michael Ignatieff, meanwhile, in his first debate, struggled a little bit. At times, it seemed he was straying from the formula that had been working for him in this election and in his tours around the country– freely speaking without notes or a reliance on sound bites. Because of this repetition of sound bites in the debate, he came across as a bit ingenuine. However, it’s too early to say if that hurt him or not, as most people in the country didn’t watch all two hours. Perhaps some of his soundbites didn’t come across that way to the casual viewer.

While he struggled at some points to come up with the right words, I think he did have the best “clippable” remarks (like “It’s not bickering, it’s democracy” and (to Harper) “You are a man who will shut down anything you can’t control”). He also came across as angry with Harper, which might not have helped him win any votes on the right side of the spectrum, but certainly must have hardened the Liberal vote.

It’s too early to say if this debate will change anything. But it was certainly refreshing to see the leaders actually talk to each other and even stray from talking points.

Meanwhile, the Sun newspapers have run an editorial comparing Ignatieff to Chairman Mao, the murderous Chinese communist dictator. You should read it, if only to make clear to yourself that you should never take the Sun seriously, and you might want to ignore the new Sun TV News channel.

I am tempted to think so. As a supporter of a high-speed rail system for certain corridors in Canada, I am familiar with the usual arguments against such a project. Whether it is “too expensive”; “won’t work in our weather”; or “impossible to get a right-of-way”– most of them do not hold much water. The last argument– that right of way is unavailable or too difficult to acquire– to me is the strongest of the arguments. It got me thinking: what would be the easiest way to solve this problem?

Hydro transmission corridors are huge swaths of mostly clear land that slice through our cities and countryside, allowing electricity generated in one part of the province to be transferred great distances over high-voltage lines. Because they respond to demand for electricity, many of the corridors blaze a trail from major power producers to major power users (i.e. large urban centres). In fact, if you look at a map [PDF] of these corridors, the system looks quite similar to our other large infrastructure right-of-ways– highways, railways and the like. In some cases, the corridors are almost “as the crow flies” from city to city.

One of the major reasons they are so straight is that these corridors do not have to respond to variability in the terrain like highways and railways do. This obviously does not work for high speed rail, which requires mostly flat terrain. However, there’s no reason that surrounding land could not be acquired in order to avoid significant topographical features. Using existing hydro corridors would probably reduce expropriation by 90% (no evidence for this number, that’s just my opinion).

What if Ontario Hydro agreed to a lease of its property for such purposes? Would it actually work? Would the removal of such a significant barrier (right-of-way acquisition) change our governments’ current reticence to pursue such a project?

Note: I am definitely not the first person to think of this. I have found at least one example: the Maryland Department of Transportation studied the suitability of hydro rights-of-way [PDF report] for transportation infrastructure in 2002. If you know of any other examples, especially in the Canadian context, please let me know in the comments below.

It was expected that the provincial and federal governments would foot the majority of the cost of the system. For whatever reason, expectations were raised to this level somewhere along the way. (The “norm”, if there is one, for funding large infrastructure investments, is commitments of one-third from each level of government.) To expect that the Region could get a state-of-the-art rapid transit system for almost no cost to the local taxpayer was unreasonable in the first place.

In many ways, it is this unmet expectation of federal and provincial funds that brought on the debate the Region’s councillors and residents are now having. Local cost burden for the Kitchener-Waterloo LRT & Cambridge BRT is now estimated to be $235M, with property taxes to be increased over six years to pay the difference.

Cambridge mayor Doug Craig has become the most outspoken regional critic of the LRT + BRT scheme, saying it would shortchange taxpayers in his city, who would have to ride buses while those in Kitchener-Waterloo ride on modern trains. He, and voters, convinced regional council to reconsider a system of consisting entirely of buses in January. Planners presented a list of 10 options to the Planning and Works Committee on February 15, a list that consisted of one train-only option and one bus-only option, with the others being combined options. This list will now be subject to public consultation before the question of technology is put to council one more time.

LRT's capacity is a huge advantage

It would seem that the list is a fair account of the options before council and the Region, given that almost two years ago, the same council nearly unanimously approved the LRT + BRT scheme (exception being Mr. Craig). Yet Doug Craig and some other councillors do not see it that way. Commenting on the list, Mr. Craig said, “I expected this to be biased. I didn’t expect it to be over the top.” Other Cambridge councillors complained that the list was titled too much toward trains. In response, a councillor from Waterloo accused councillors from Cambridge as being affected by “Cinderella syndrome”, a false sense of being overlooked and neglected. Clearly, a formerly unified council and Region has become fragmented by differing visions of the future.

What disturbed me most as a not-quite-professional planner was the allegations of bias Mr. Craig made towards Regional planning staff. In comments he made after the meeting (rather than in it), Mr. Craig said:

“The whole report is awful… It is a sell job for LRT (light rail transit), plain and simple. And it’s embarrassing. They haven’t done it properly or without bias.”

My guess is he did not allege bias in his comments during the meeting because it would be much more serious if he did so. However, the comments are still of concern to the planners, as they attempt to take a fair and balanced approach to the issue.

The "biased" slide

That being said, Mr. Craig wondered aloud why planners chose to show an over-capacity Ottawa BRT system instead of empty LRT trains in Buffalo during the presentation. Perhaps he is right: planners should have let the facts speak for themselves rather than making the apples-to-oranges comparison of a dying, rustbelt city like Buffalo to a recession-proof government capital.

I have read the presentation, and apart from the pictures, it is mostly full of facts. BRT is a system that would only last for 20 years for the fast-growing region before it is clogging the roads with trains of buses, like Ottawa’s system. LRT costs more than BRT. LRT has a greater positive effect on property values, attracts more riders and employers, and has more benefits to the user. And perhaps most importantly, the number of existing or projected riders “south of Fairview Park Mall” (read: Cambridge) is far below that of Kitchener and Waterloo.

One could fault planners for trying to gussy up a presentation with photos. But one can hardly blame the planners for submitting a report that lays out the facts pretty clearly. Another fact that was in the planner’s report: Mr. Craig’s all-BRT option would cost only 15% less. For a system that would only last 20 years, selecting the all-bus option clearly sacrifices future budgetary concerns for short-term political and budgetary concerns. While Mr. Craig rejects LRT on the basis that it is unfair to Cambridge, clearly what is best for the long-term health of the Region is the proposed LRT + BRT.

You can see the slides the Region’s planners presented to the Planning and Works Committee here and the full report document here [both PDF].

Make a judgement of your own: is the report biased in favour of LRT?

This quote is one that forms some of the basis for urbanist Wytold Rybczynski’s newest book, Makeshift Metropolis. Throughout the book, Rybczynski makes the argument that, while the 20th century was all about planning ideas and concepts shaping the built form of cities, it is the market that today and in the future will shape our cities. Of this he is quite convincing, and as other urban thinkers have pointed out before, the latest planning ideas have shaped our cities the least out of all of them. Think of New Urbanism, for example– embraced by many in the early 1990s as a solution to cookie-cutter suburban communities– now, for the most part, is relegated to being a movement mainly about the aesthetics of homes. It also barely made an impact on our cities; a non-planner or urban designer would not be able to distinguish it from regular suburban planning.

Makeshift Metropolis is one of those books that will begin by being very familiar to those who have studied urban planning. Rybczynski takes the reader through the history of planning theory and practice, focusing on “three big ideas”– the City Beautiful, Garden City, and Le Corbusier’s “towers in the park”. The author’s writing style is highly readable, and he manages to spruce up otherwise dry planning history with anecdotes about the often larger-than-life personalities behind the theories. While it makes for an interesting read, it by no means is a comprehensive history of planning theory– that is not the purpose of this book.

What is very striking to me is that almost all of the members of the “planning Parthenon”, so to speak, were not professional planners by any stretch. Charles Mulford Robinson, father of the City Beautiful movement, was a journalist and freelance writer. Ebenezer Howard, creator of the Garden City concept, was a clerk and a parliamentary stenographer. Le Corbusier was a slightly eccentric and mostly egotistical architect.

Initially I was hit with the thought that perhaps this reflects poorly on planning as a discipline, that individuals from mostly unrelated occupations could simply pick up a pen and change the face of cities. Perhaps planning is not something that can be taught, but has to be learned and gleaned from inspirational encounters with urbanism. However, reflecting on those thoughts, I am more inclined to believe that planning as a discipline is by its very nature multi-disciplinary. Even today in Ontario, as the Ontario Professional Planners Institute moves to more stringent qualifications and ethical standards, the OPPI’s membership includes people from all kinds of occupations– lawyers, writers, architects and engineers to name a few. Planning thrived on the ideas of non-planners in the 20th century– but maybe they were planners.

Rybczynski does nice work relating the history of planning theory to the shape of cities throughout North America today. Nothing is new about this approach, but he does bring some new ideas to the subject. In particular, I like his approach of weeding through the planning ideas and finding out which ideas worked and which did not.

Rybczynski seems to have a soft spot for the Garden City– and who wouldn’t, with its generous parks, large-sized lots and generally definitive town centre. While people generally enjoy a high quality of life in these places, they are not, and never will be, cities. They are suburbs, plain and simple– but foster a more community-oriented environment in which to live.

Personally I found that Rybczynski fails to conclude his book effectively. Essentially what I gathered from his points, if I were to put it simply, is this: the market is not always right when it comes to city planning, but yet it is more right than “willful urban visionaries” such as Le Corbusier. I think this conclusion is correct, as recent emphasis on public participation in planning has shown. Where this point gets confused is the author’s oft-repeated admiration for Garden City– the idea of a “willful urban visionary”.

That being said, as a reader, it stimulated my planner mind. I found myself so stimulated that I took notes immediately after finishing the book, even though it was a late evening on a work night. Despite the sleepy haze I was in, I think I came up with some interesting questions:

• How would a “regular” citizen design a city and/or neighbourhood? For anticipated traffic volumes and safety? Or for aesthetics? Convenience? Walkability? Connectedness? Environmental Impact? Where are our priorities when it comes to the city?
• History has shown “trendy” planning to have some good results but mostly bad. Which “trends” should we be careful to avoid? Are there any “tried and true” planning concepts that we should embrace as gospel?

Most of all, I was inspired to think again about a way of planning cities that I have often found myself thinking about. It involves reverting back to the planning of streets and city plans by governments and very large scale (city-sized) developers. Earlier in the 20th century, this resulted in a systematic (some say boring) grid of streets, and systematic parcelling. The result of this (in a different planning climate, obviously) was structures tailored to the street and the needs of the immediate surrounding residents– not just the financial needs of the developer.

Currently, developers of “subdivisions” plan street networks. These networks are disjointed from the “arterial” roads around them, and even the neighbouring subdivision developed by a different company. I have found the main impetus behind this sort of planning to be traffic engineers, as well as concepts of safety accepted by developers and the public as gospel. Engineers say that entry points to the subdivision need to be limited so that residential streets are “safe”; and arterial roads are separated for safety reasons– but the only reason they are unsafe is because they are deemed to be arterials. My own hunch is that non-planners and non-engineers would not plan their city in this way, simply because it does not make common sense.

If we are attempting to design new developments in a most livable way, Rybczynski is right to look at past development that has worked, and to suggest that we embrace these ideas in a market-based. However, we should always, always be careful not to accept some woman’s or man’s thoughts outright. History has shown many times over that ideas become “what the people want” for a short time, only to leave semi-permanent scars on our cities. What history also has made certain is that cities are the largest experiment humans have ever conducted– and will continue to conduct.

Toronto Star graphic

While the way they got from Germany to Canada– by boat– is interesting enough, the part of the journey that really fascinates me is the final leg, from the Port of Hamilton to the brewery on Carlingview Drive. From the Star story:

“[The] plan, which will be put into action on Friday, is a feat that involves moving 250 traffic lights, manoeuvring around 1,614 service wires, and slowing down nighttime traffic for four nights as a 40-vehicle convoy crawls through a meticulously planned route through five municipalities. All this for beer.”

There are other numbers that illustrate just how difficult a task it is to plan a shipment like this. 75 people met in a boardroom in November and took all day to figure out the route; the route was surveyed 70 times; and 20 different service providers will have to help the convoy manoeuvre around 1 614 service wires along the route.

Frank DeVries, who has the job of co-ordinating all this, has to be admired for his commitment to the job. Surely at around 6:00 a.m., January 11th, when the shipment is due to arrive at the brewery, Mr DeVries and his crew will be able to feel a great sense of accomplishment.

You can follow the convoy’s progress via Mr DeVries’ Twitter account.

In this editorial, Mr Chong attempts to outline how Mr Ford’s vision for transit in Toronto can and should be accomplished. He, like the mayor, declares that Transit City needs to be altered and that Toronto should aim higher (not those congestion-causing “streetcars”, but subways). For someone most would consider an expert on these sorts of issues, he makes some glaring logical leaps and avoids current political and fiscal realities.

One glaring logical error is the much-ballyhooed “one-seat ride” for Scarberians. This has been a common salvo of critics of Transit City, who like to call it “Transfer City” because of the switch a rider may have to make from LRT to subway and vice versa. However, while it’s not clear how a Sheppard subway would work for Scarborough (because it’s not been planned), it is reasonable to assume that the Sheppard line would function separately from the Yonge line and the Bloor-Danforth line (and the SRT, assuming it either remains something other than subway). Hence, unless a rider is going from Scarborough Town Centre to North York Centre or somewhere right along Sheppard, they will not have a one-seat ride. A ride from Scarborough Town Centre to Yonge and Finch, for example, will still require two seats.

Without presenting the numbers, Mr Chong also tells us that before the Yonge Subway was built, the ridership numbers were not there to support it, and yet here we are today. Perhaps Mr Chong is not as experienced in the field of urban planning as he is transportation, because Sheppard Avenue of 2011 is not Yonge Street of the 1950s. Yonge street was an is an urban street, full of shopping, residents and entertainment venues. The majority of Sheppard Avenue’s

Much of Sheppard Ave. looks like this

surroundings are low-density residential subdivisions, zoned as such, and protected from development by the City’s Official Plan. This is why the LRT was such a pragmatic choice for Toronto’s suburban streets: only some of Sheppard is available for more intense population growth. To project that Sheppard would equal Yonge would more than likely mean a paradigm shift in north Scarborough’s planning landscape.

“But what about the money” you say? Mr Chong has a solution for that too:

We should beg, borrow or steal to finish what was started instead of settling for second best simply because it was on sale.

Financial constraints have been cited ad nauseam by various levels of government… However, funding then miraculously appears for some other vote-getting initiative.

Worse still, an auditor general reports on the enormous sums that are wasted or mismanaged annually, leaving the mendacious politicians with egg on their collective faces.

We should “steal” from those latent pots of money identified by the auditor general to build the Sheppard subway to the future.

Mr Chong has come up with an idea so brilliant that no one has ever thought of it before. Take all that money being wasted at all levels of government, throw it into one pot, et voila, a Sheppard Subway with no pain to you! This is such a problematic proposal, it’s almost impossible to know where to start with it. If this money is so easily attainable, why hasn’t this method been used to build all sorts of other goodies for us? For one thing, I would be willing to bet that Mayor Ford will give a tax cut with those savings before he builds anything. It is also very interesting to see a key member of Mr Ford’s transition team declare that the City should increase its debt level in order to build a Sheppard subway (remember that thing about “stopping the gravy train”?)

Don’t fret, disadvantaged people at Jane and Finch, Mr Chong has a solution for you too. Instead of a quick, reliable LRT line along Finch, Mr Chong proposes that we “settle for second best” (Mr Chong’s own slanderous words) in a big way by building a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line through the Finch hydro corridor. It’ll be like a three-seat ride to get downtown, and it will be isolated from the street, but it will be dirt cheap and you get to ride on comfortable highway coach buses! (Now I’m getting snarky.)

While I can agree with some of Mr Chong’s sentiments (visionary subway building, helping captive riders, practical transit systems, and more for Scarborough), it is when his philosophies meet up with cold, hard reality that he loses me. One cannot simply ignore the fact that governments have chosen not to spend money on these types of projects. We all like to dream, but one also cannot flippantly make plans for transit without conducting studies to back it up (Mr Ford likes to do this, too). While Transit City has been studied to death, a Sheppard subway has been deemed unworkable before, and BRT lines have been built selectively due to the public’s distaste for buses of any kind.

Instead of dreaming up unrealistic financial schemes and dictating transit planning from the mayor’s office, Mr Ford and his team should be committing to the long-term vision that was (and is) Metrolinx’s Big Move. It is the only vision that has been put through its public paces and has met with political and fiscal realities.

We should beg, borrow or steal to finish what was started instead of settling for second best simply because it was on sale.