Toronto

Toronto Transit Service Cuts Criticized in University Report

Wendell Cox — Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:34:45 -0400

Just implemented service adjustments will reduce Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) services to nine percent below pre-pandemic levels.

A Toronto Metropolitan University report (2023 TTC Service Changes and Transit Equity in Toronto), while acknowledging TTC’s challenging fiscal situation, notes that “Toronto’s most marginalized neighbourhoods will likely be disproportionately affected by the TTC service cuts.” The report continues: “These neighbourhoods may not generate the highest amounts of public transit trips, but residents in these neighbourhoods may be more dependent on public transit for their everyday needs compared to other parts of the city.” This “will likely make these neighbourhoods more mobility poor, creating additional barriers to the residents’ participation in employment, education, and society in general.”

Moreover, the report finds “At a time when all levels of the government are committing to address affordability and inequality, the proposed TTC service cuts are not justified.”

Note: The TTC principally serves the city (municipality) of Toronto, which accounts for 45% of the Toronto census metropolitan area population.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Detached Houses on Smaller Lots: Key to L.A.'s High Density

Wendell Cox — Tue, 19 Jul 2022 11:42:05 -0400

Recently, the high density of Los Angeles became an issue in a proposed city of Vancouver high rise development project (six buildings of from 12 to 40 stories). A July 4 Vancouver Sun article, by Susan Lazarak (“Vancouver proposes huge housing development at north end of Granville Bridge”) cited University of British Columbia regional planning professor Michael Hooper to the effect that concentrating tall towers but allowing lower density elsewhere doesn’t necessarily translate into a high overall density. In particular, he noted that Los Angeles has higher overall density than New York City because L.A. has “vast swaths of middle-density buildings” throughout the city.

Professor Hooper makes a valid and often misunderstood point on tall towers. Indeed, the Corbusian towers, which have been built in many cities, and famously rejected in Paris, are not required to achieve higher densities.

But first, some background…

This article clarifies often misunderstood urban density issues.

First of all, the city (municipality) of Los Angeles is not denser than the city of New York.

However, the Los Angeles urban area is considerably denser than the New York urban area. The urban area is the area of continuous development, and excludes all rural land (by definition, all land that is not urban is rural, according to both Statistics Canada and the US Census Bureau).

For example, the Vancouver urban area (the Statistics Canada term for urban area is “population centre”), stretches from Horseshoe Bay to Langley and Richmond to Maple Ridge and Port Coquitlam (Figure 1, Statistics Canada map of the Vancouver population centre).

Urban areas/population centres are defined by Statistics Canada and the US Census Bureau based on data from small census enumeration zones, without regard to municipal limits or even provincial or state boundaries (such as Ottawa-Gatineau, ON-QC, or Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD).

Moreover, the suburbs of Los Angeles (the part of the urban area outside the city), are about twice as dense as those of New York. This more than compensates for the higher municipal density in New York.

Urban areas are not metropolitan areas (census metropolitan areas). Population centres/urban areas are the highest geographical level at which urban density can be measured, because any higher level is at least partially rural. Metropolitan area densities are combined urban and rural densities.

In the United States, 81% of the land in metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 residents was rural in 2010 (see: Rural Character in America’s Metropolitan Areas). The 2021 census indicates that the Vancouver population centre comprises only 32% of the land in the Vancouver census metropolitan area.

Back to Los Angeles and New York…

The United States Census Bureau delineates the land area of urban areas in its census. The current release is based on the 2010 census. The Los Angeles urban area had a population density of 2,702 per square kilometer, more than 30% higher than New York’s 2,054. The Toronto population centre had a density of 3,088 according to the 2021 census, nearly 15% higher than Los Angeles (Figure 2).

The latest data from the American Community Survey (see Note 1) shows that the largest difference in housing types between the Los Angeles and New York urban areas is among single-family detached houses (Figure 3, see Note 2). In Los Angeles, 40% more of the housing stock is detached than in New York (48.4% compared to 34.0%).

The higher density, detached housing suburbs of Los Angeles are contrasted photographically with those of New York, at distances of 24 kilometers/15 miles and 56 kilometers/35 miles from the urban cores (Figures 4 and 5).

Even the San Francisco (2,249) and San Jose (2,267) urban areas have higher urban densities than New York. Like Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose have a larger share of single-family housing and a lower share of multi-family housing than New York — the opposite of what would be expected. As with Los Angeles, the higher densities of the San Francisco and San Jose urban areas compared to New York are driven by their detached housing on smaller lots (Figure 6).

Ironically, Los Angeles has long been considered the epitome of urban sprawl — probably more than any other urban area. If this perception were true, then every large population centre/urban area in Canada and the United States would be denser than Los Angeles. The reality? Only Toronto is denser (Figure 2).

Note 1: The later American Community Survey data for urban areas is based on the land area as defined by the Census Bureau in 2010.

Note 2: The factors contributing to urban density in this article relate only to residential densities. There is no readily available source for the extent of land use by non-residential functions, such as commercial, industrial and public facilities.

New Toronto to London (ON) Train Ridership Half that of a Bus

Wendell Cox — Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:32:33 -0500

The Toronto Star reports that the new Toronto to London, Ontario “GO” Transit commuter train is carrying far fewer passengers than the average transit bus. (see: GO’s new London-Toronto train is moving fewer passengers than a half-full TTC bus). During the week of November 15, ticket sales were only 32 per scheduled train.

The service, according to the Star, is operated with trains with six cars each, with a capacity of 162 passengers. This means is operating at three percent of capacity (that assumes all riders travel the entire distance from London to Union Station in downtown Toronto).

According to The Star, the GO trip takes nearly four hours each way between Toronto and London. VIA Rail, Canada, the national passenger rail system operates services between the two terminals in 2:10.

Metrolinx, which operates the GO train system across the Greater Golden Horseshoe, indicates that ridership remains about 75% less than normal, due to the pandemic. Even if the new London service were to attract four times the ridership (which returning to normal would accomplish over the entire network), less than 15% of the capacity would be utilized. This is a patronage level that could be easily handled by a few buses, which would also permit provision of trips throughout the day.

On the assumption that the public purpose of this service is serving people, the least expensive option should be provided --- that which attracts the highest number of passengers for the least cost. It is inconceivable that this could involve six car trains, and not even one-car trains.

This is not intended to criticize Metrolinx or GO trains, since similar decisions have been made by governments and transit operators virtually around the world, favoring trains, regardless of the cost. There are obviously places where rail transit is justified, but regrettably, not in many of the places it has been built in recent decades. The result has been to provide considerably less transit service and fewer rides than would have been the case if more efficient alternatives were adopted --- and alternatives that are time competitive with the car.

The University of Toronto’s Professor Shoshanna Saxe “hit the nail on the head,” noting “It’s very hard to attract people to transit when it’s slower than driving,” The problem not limited to the London to Toronto service. For example, international research found that within the Toronto CMA, cars provide 4.5 times the 30-minute job access as transit, despite the fact that it is hard to find a better transit system in North America.

Employment access should be the principal driver of transit policy, with emphasis on obtaining the largest increases among lower-income households that have less automobile access. That would lead to less poverty, an improved economy and more jobs.

The issue is not cars, trains or buses, it is outcomes for people. Transit’s potential can only be achieved if available resources are committed to maximizing ridership, especially to work, which is the most important trip.

Note: As a matter of interest, Metrolinx made a pre-pandemic-pandemic map of ridership by train line available (April to September 2020).

Ontario Premier Doug Ford Supports New Highway

Wendell Cox — Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:56:59 -0500

Ontario’s premier Doug Ford indicated strong support for the new 60 kilometer (more than 35 miles) Highway 413 across the northwest suburbs of metropolitan Toronto. The highway would connect Vaughn, in York region with Milton, connective with Highway 401 west of Toronto International Airport. Highway 401, the MacDonald Cartier Freeway is one of the world’s busiest and widest highway, especially as it traverses within the northern city limits of Toronto, with from 12 to 14 lanes (see map at Toronto CTV News).

According to the Toronto Star, Ford “dismissed critics as downtown Toronto ideologues.” Ford told the Star: ““Just sitting there and telling people, ‘hop on your bicycle or get behind a horse and buggy and start driving,’ it doesn’t cut it.” The premier added “That’s the ideology of a lot of people that are from downtown Toronto making their comments about up here.”

How long will Toronto’s downtown be a ghost town? (Toronto Star)

Wendell Cox — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 11:43:06 -0400

Echoing concerns being raised around many world metros with the most important downtowns (central business districts), Toronto Star real state reporter Tess Kalinowski asks how long Toronto’s downtown will be a ghost town victim of the pandemic. Toronto has the largest and most important central business district in Canada, with nearly 500,000 workers, nearly the size of Chicago’s Loop. In North America, only Manhattan, itself having spent months as a ghost town, is larger than these.

The September 3 article quotes a styling salon owner on the depth of the problem. His salon is operating on a three-day week in the absence of clients from the offices above who are still working from home. He says that “The towers are empty. Businesses like mine, we rely on the towers,” he said during lunchtime amid a late August heat wave. “Clients aren’t going to commute from home.”

An office worker characterized the situation as “The new normal.”

The latest weekly occupancy survey found that only 8% of downtown workers were in the office, though that is an improvement from the low of 3%.

The Go Transit (Metrolinx) suburban rail system, almost completely dependent on travel to and from downtown’s Union Station, is operating at “20 to 30%” of pre-Covid levels. This even trails New York City, where the latest data shows ridership reductions of 55% to 65% on the suburban rail Long Island and Metro North systems.

Of course, downtown Toronto, along with Manhattan, Chicago’s Loop, downtown San Francisco, the Sydney and Melbourne CBDs and the many others, will not be ghost towns forever. The “downtown” experience for the post-college as yet non-parent set continues to be attractive even in some moribund cores, including Toronto (as the article indicates).

Toronto Mayor John Tory noted the challenge in a September 5 Toronto Star interview, “one of the areas that was hardest-hit and most hollowed out by the pandemic was the downtown core.” With respect to downtown workers, the Mayor added: “…25 to 30 per cent won’t necessarily be at the office every single day because they will follow a hybrid model.” With the already likely widespread adoption of the hybrid model, the “old normal” seems unlikely to return to the downtown ghost towns.

Commentary: Build on the Toronto Urban Fringe

Wendell Cox — Sun, 06 May 2018 12:12:46 -0400

On May 3, Canada’s Financial Post, the nation’s leading business daily, published my commentary entitled: “Doug Ford was right: Toronto housing won’t be affordable unless we develop the Greenbelt: The PCs could have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to effectively deal with the housing-affordability crisis.”

For those unfamiliar with Ontario politics, Doug Ford is the leader of the Progressive Conservatives in the Ontario Provincial Parliament and the PC’s are the Progressive Conservatives.

As the commentary indicates, Toronto has a severe housing affordability crisis, traceable to adoption of a urban containment policy in the middle 2000s. The commentary concludes: “Doug Ford and the PCs could have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to effectively deal with the housing-affordability crisis. It is time for a serious rethink of the Toronto-area housing policy, with a focus on putting the right priorities first. People are more important than place.”

The article is available here….

Ryerson University Research Cites Urban Containment Policy as Major Factor in Toronto House Price Escalation

Wendell Cox — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:01:42 -0400

A Globe and Mail article on April 25 cites Ryerson University research found that Ontario's urban containment based growth controls have "spurred soaring increases in house prices in the Toronto region by limiting construction of new low-rise family homes..." This effect was predicted by a number of analysts when the program was being formulated more than a decade ago and has been associated with huge price increases relative to incomes in such widely distributed metropolitan areas as Vancouver, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Sydney, Auckland, Melbourne and others.

According to reporter Janet McFarland, the Centre for Urban Research and Land Development report identified “'a marked mismatch” between the types of units completed and the types demanded, according to the report from the Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University in Toronto." The report concludes that "The public discussion on the fundamental causes behind the rise in prices of ground-related housing (singles, semis and townhouses) in the GTA over the past decade by ignoring or downplaying the role played by the shortfall of serviced sites available to build new homes misses the only viable solution to dealing with deteriorating longer-term affordability – significantly increasing the number of new ground-related housing units built."

Over the 13 years of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, Toronto's housing affordability has substantially worsened, with median prices at 3.8 times median incomes in 2004 (before the growth controls were fully implemented) to 7.7 times in 2016. This measure, the "median multiple," had changed little between 1970 and 2004, when land use regulations were more liberal in the Toronto area.

Without liberalization of the housing market to permit supply that meets demand (not only in numbers but also in preferred type of housing), Toronto can expect its house prices to rise even more. Already, Vancouver and Sydney, for example are more than 50 percent higher (at median multiples of 11.8 and 12.2 respectively).

Toronto Area Housing Market Rigged Against Millennials

Wendell Cox — Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:40:54 -0400

In a Globe and Mail column, Margaret Wente accurately describes Toronto’s housing affordability crisis and its principal cause. The Toronto area’s house prices have escalated strongly relative to incomes since the province enacted its “Places to Grow” urban planning regime. The resulting destruction of the competitive market for new residential has driven prices up, just as oil prices rise when OPEC implements strong supply restrictions.

Wente concluded her article:

“The solution to the affordability crisis isn’t high-density housing and mass transit in the burbs. It’s to give people what they want – by getting the ideologues out of the way and restoring a sensible balance between supply and demand. Can we do that and be environmentally responsible too? Central planners who think we can’t should be required to raise their families in an apartment block in Oshawa and take the bus to work. They’d find a better way soon enough.”

It’s no wonder that international researchers are increasingly pointing to house price escalation as a leading driver of rising inequality. Nor should it be surprising that a new Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report will issue its first “red warning” on Canada’s housing market, principally due to out of control house price escalation in the Vancouver and Toronto metropolitan areas.

A Toronto Condo Bubble?

Wendell Cox — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:02:39 -0400

Toronto has experienced a virtual explosion in high rise condominium construction in recent years, especially in the downtown area. According to Bloomberg, Toronto has the largest number of high-rise condominium towers under construction in the world.

However concerns are being expressed that the market may be saturated and that a housing bubble is developing. The Toronto Starreports that new condominium sales declined 55 percent in the first quarter of 2013, compared to last year.

At the same time, a huge number of new condominium units is under construction in Toronto. According to The Star, 57,000 units were being built during the first quarter. The first quarter build rate is reported as the largest rate ever. For their part, builders have scaled back plans for new towers

Who is Buying?

In an article entitled, “Toronto Condo Investors Under Water,” the Toronto Condo Bubble|Toronto Housing Bubble website (subtitled Largest Housing Bubble Except for Vancouver of Course) asked: “… if condo living is the way of the future, then why is it that the majority of people who buy condos never actually live in them?”

The question was in the context of a report by Scotiabank that between 45% and 60% of Toronto condominium purchasers were investors, rather than people who actually intended to live in the housing.

Single Family Housing in Toronto: The Holy Grail

At the same time, The Star points to indicators that the single family housing market retains considerable strength. Part of the reason is that this most desired type of housing is made far more difficult to build as a result of provincial land-use policies (urban containment, including the Toronto "greenbelt").According to The Star, "That’s made detached homes, in particular, the coveted Holy Grail of housing."

Despite the explosion in condominium units, Statistics Canada data indicates that 71 percent of net new occupied housing in the Toronto metropolitan area was detached between 2006 and 2011.

These market dynamics, rising detached house prices relative to incomes and heightened speculation are predictable outcomes of urban containment (land rationing) policies.

Toronto's Greenbelt: Pushing up Congestion, Local Air Pollution and House Prices

Wendell Cox — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:05:36 -0400

I had the pleasure of participating on Jerry Agar's program on Newstalk 1010 in Toronto, with host Tasha Kheiriddin on August 15. The subject was a new report by the David Suzuki Foundation lauding the benefits of Toronto's greenbelt greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction role as a carbon sink.

Ms. Kheiriddin was interested in the other side of the issue, which I was happy to summarize. First and foremost, for all of their claimed benefits, greenbelts around growing cities have serious consequences. They force population densities up, which makes traffic more congested. This is because as densities rise, traffic volumes increase. There are various estimates of the increase in traffic congestion from a doubling of density, from (for example) 61 percent (Sierra Club) to 96 percent (Ewing and Cervero). The greater congestion produces more intense local air pollution, with the predictable health effects. Beyond that, as any Economics 101 student should know, rationing anything (such as land) tends to be associated with higher prices. It is no wonder that house prices have skyrocketed since the greenbelt was established.

It is important to understand the dynamics of GHGs. It doesn't matter whether they occur in the Toronto greenbelt or Patagonia. This means that there is no reason for GHG reduction to emanate from the Toronto greenbelt. It would be far better to forest some of the 7.5 million acres of disused farmland in Ontario (since 1951). This is many times as much land as the Toronto greenbelt. In other words, from a global (or local GHG emission perspective), the Toronto greenbelt is irrelevant (Note).

The purpose of the city (metropolitan area) should be to facilitate higher discretionary incomes for its residents, while minimizing poverty, all within the constraints of sufficient environmental protection. The greenbelt reduces discretionary incomes by restricting mobility (more traffic congestion) and raising house prices. It increases poverty by raising costs and preventing job creation. The greenbelt's claimed GHG emission benefits can readily be replaced by strategies elsewhere that do not reduce economic growth.

Note: Large portions of the farmland in Ontario and Quebec have been taken out of production since 1951, as production has been transferred to the Prairie provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba). Meanwhile, the real value of agricultural production in Canada increased 160 percent from 1961 to 2005.