In response to Baird cursing Toronto…

My comment posted on Macleans.ca blog, in response to why Tories claim Toronto’s streetcar contract is ‘not stimulus’:

Baird claims that because Toronto’s streetcar contract is over a 10 year period, it does not offer “immediate stimulus”, which is a load of crock (see, I can control my language!). The second the contract is signed, the whole chain of supply to build them will be initialized, from the engineers, parts manufacturers, and quite possibly, the construction of a new assembly facility in the GTA. The Toronto streetcar contract also has a “Canadian Content” clause as well, where at least 25% of the value of the contract must be spent in Canada.

The reason why this isn’t acceptable to the Tories is because unlike small scale road and bridge or sewer projects, this is long term, large scale thinking that they will likely not get any photo opportunities from. The first streetcar is not expected to roll off the assembly line for two years, and they’re very well aware that they need a big publicity stunt before that. Once again, the Tory mantra is not to ‘dream big’, but to resort to expediency and short-term political advantage.

The Politics of the Flag Reach Canada

source: Macleans.ca

So Harper brought out the “Coalition isn’t patriotic because they didn’t have a flag at their news conference” card today in Question Period. By the way, this was an outright lie, there were in fact two flags at the news conference, as per the convention in displaying the Canadian flag with all the provincial and territorial flags. I pointed this out through a comment on the Macleans.ca blog, and was subsequently called a Muslim and a Terrorist (both of which I am not).

From the “Rules for Flying the Flag” Website:

“With flags of the Canadian provinces and territories

When provincial and territorial flags are flown with the National Flag of Canada, the order is based on the date of entry into Confederation of the provinces followed by the territories. In a grouping of flags that includes the National Flag of Canada and all of the flags of the provinces and territories, the order of precedence is:
1. National Flag of Canada
2. Ontario (1867)
3. Quebec (1867)
4. Nova Scotia (1867)
5. New Brunswick (1867)
6. Manitoba (1870)
7. British Columbia (1871)
8. Prince Edward Island (1873)
9. Saskatchewan (1905)
10. Alberta (1905)
11. Newfoundland (1949)
12. Northwest Territories (1870)
13. Yukon (1898)
14. Nunavut (1999)

When there are more than three flagpoles/masts, the National Flag of Canada should be flown on the left of the observer facing the flags, followed by the flags of the provinces and territories. An additional National Flag of Canada may be displayed at the end of the line if desired. ”

So basically, the coalition leaders followed the rules. Because of this layout, the Canadian flags are on the outside, which means it’s really difficult to show blatant patriotism when you want to recognize that we are a federation of provinces and territories. Stephen Harper discovered how to get past this a long time ago by putting as many flags behind him as possible, as shown below:

source: PM Harper’s Flickr Site

I find it hilarious that the Tories have tried to villify the Coalition for this, when there are these examples of their poor flag-etiquette, like here, when all the provincial/territorial flags are displayed, but not at all in the order as required above:

source: PM Harper’s Flickr Site

Why are we even talking about something so trivial like this when there are much bigger things to worry about? The politics of this are really interesting, but when it comes down to accusations of treason and disloyalty to a country we all love, I have to draw a line. Grow up Mr. Harper.

Has the LCBO Plastic Bag returned?

The LCBO announced in May that it would no longer be handing out plastic bags at its stores, to the delight of most environmental-minded citizens, and the scorn of other plastic-loving ones. It was intended that the LCBO would not order any more bags after their supply runs out.

From their news release:

LCBO has stopped ordering plastic bags and expects supplies of the remaining stock to run out by summer. As a result, availability of plastic bags in the next few months will vary from store to store.

Note it said “by summer”. Not “in the summer” or “the end of summer” or “by fall”, but “by summer”, which would mean before June 23, 2008.

The Toronto Star went even further:

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario will announce today that it won’t hand out plastic shopping bags once it exhausts existing supplies, the Star has learned. Some stores have already run out.

So I found it strange that it is now the end of September and the three main stores I go to (Manulife Centre, Hudsons Bay Centre, and Yonge/Wellesley) are still handing out plastic bags. Even busy stores, like Yonge/Dundas, still have a supply. The strangest thing is that some stores seem to have restocked plastic bags, as in, they had run out and now they have them again.

There’s two possible explanations:

1) The program is incredibly successful and everyone is bringing their own bag or asking for paper bags (because you have to ask, since most clerks are still reaching first for the plastic). This means the supply of plastic bags is dwindling more slowly than they first thought.

2) They caved in on the policy and have quietly brought plastic bags back.

I certainly hope #1 is the case. But two things are causing me to be suspicious. First, is the return of bags at the stores that had previously run out. And second, is the quality of the more recent plastic bags - they are thinner than the old ones. Why would the bag change if there was no new contract signed?

Does your local LCBO still have plastic bags?

Stephen Harper, B. Econ, M.Econ, maybe you’re “wrong” too

I’m sorry, I have to get my anger and distaste of Stephen Harper’s “ivory tower” comment off my chest. Doesn’t Harper have two university (“ivory tower”) degrees - a bachelors and a masters - in Economics from the University of Calgary? And according to his Wikipedia entry, he lectures often there to this day. So it angers me when he says this:

“Yes, we believe they’re wrong,” Harper said. “We’re listening to ordinary people, not people who work in ivory towers, but people who actually work on the street and deal with crime on a day-to-day basis.”

This statement means two things. First, either he believes his alma mater is no ivory tower or his education in economics is “wrong”. In my opinion, the University of Calgary is a fine post-secondary education… but based on his comments, should we now assume everything he says about economics is also “wrong”? Secondly, he must believe the 40% of Canadians with post-secondary education are “wrong”… if that’s the case, I’m interested to see what his post-secondary education plan is going to be? Destroy it? I wouldn’t be surprised.

UPDATE: Maybe Stephen Harper is attacking ivory towers because his own alma mater is disagreeing with him

What Station Am I?

crossposted to Metronauts.ca

Above are aerial photos of six GO train stations on the Lakeshore Line. Can you identify which station is which? Even for someone like me, who is fairly familiar with the system, I had a difficult time putting a name to each one. There are no obvious distinguishing features to make identification easy — instead, there is a typical GO Station recipe: platform, station building, parking lot, and arterial roadway access. For a transit system to be truly visible and integrated into our urban fabric, these stations should not be placeless, featureless landscapes. The above photos show just how far we still have to go. The identity of each of these stations and more discussion, after the jump.

How many did you get right?

There are three reasons why I chose to place the spotlight on the Lakeshore GO Line. First, the line has been in operation for over forty years. Second, there is already high-quality and frequent (by commuter rail standards) service to each of these stations. And last, the line is poised for significant investment and improvement as part of MoveOntario and the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan.

There are very few urban transit lines in the world where four decades of continuous service has failed to spur significant development adjacent to a station. With a few exceptions, GO Transit’s suburban stations are expanses of parking lots and low density development with little walkability and identity. Instead of turning these stations into urban places, the model followed was clearly to make it as efficient as possible for commuters to drive from their homes to hop on a train.

I believe the main barrier that has prevented GO Stations from becoming urban hubs is the prominence of Park and Ride in the system’s ridership strategy. Granted, park and ride clearly represents a significant proportion of riders; however, building large parking lots on the land that is also the most attractive for development is completely counterproductive to building an all-day transit culture. Unlike in urban settings, the desirability of development drops off sharply around GO Stations, mainly due to the perception of distance in suburban environments. The parking lots therefore automatically push development beyond the limit of desirability, simply due to their size. Very few people are going to purchase a home adjacent to a GO Station when it takes ten minutes to walk across a windswept parking lot. Meanwhile, park and riders get a comfortable ten minute drive to park closer to the station than those who live by it. Is there any surprise then, why few developers have jumped at building around the stations? Is it even fair to those who are choosing a more sustainable way of living, by punishing them with that long, uncomfortable walk?

A major topic in the Green and White Papers is the concept of a Mobility Hub. I believe if GO Transit and Metrolinx are truly passionate about that concept, there needs to be shift in how we design and build around existing and new GO Stations. It is possible for park and ride to coexist with Transit Oriented Development, for example, selling the park and ride lots for development that incorporates a multi-storey parking garage to maintain park and ride capacity. But most importantly, a balance has to be made in facilitating more intermodal activity beyond the existing car-to-train.

There is huge potential for our suburban GO Stations to become landmarks and places. And if we take the right approach, perhaps soon the aerial photos above will show a place with identity, and not just another parking lot.

Are you surprised with the lack of development around our GO Stations? What do you think we should see as we move forward? What kind of measures can we take to encourage the idea of Mobility Hubs?

Toronto to launch Rent-a-Bike

It’s taking me a moment to believe this, but accroding to an article in The Star today, Toronto will be launching next summer a bike rental system similar to the highly popular Vélib’ program in Paris and the soon-to-be-launched Public Bike System in Montreal. Considering the glacial pace that cycling intiatives move at in this city, I’m surprised, and excited that this is actually happening… now if only we have the bike lanes to go with it.

Bloor Street Transformation = Sidewalk Repairs

The City of Toronto provided a press release today to announce the groundbreaking for the first phase of the Bloor Street Transformation on Wednesday. The project, initially the work of Brown + Storey Architects, is now being designed by architectsAlliance. Suffice to say, I am fairly disappointed of the outcome. aA is typically one of my favoured firms in the city for producing good results, but what they have proposed for this project is bland and boring - pretty much replicating the halls of Yorkdale.

Compare these three renderings:

FIRST PROPOSAL: Brown + Storey Architects, c. 2006

SECOND PROPOSAL: architectsAlliance c. 2007

FINAL PROPOSAL: architectsAlliance, July 2008

So pretty much we’ve gone from a somewhat playful “waves” concept in Brown + Storey’s proposal, to aA’s first attempt featuring wavy benches and planters, water features, and public art, to the current (and to be constructed) proposal featuring what pretty much amounts to a sidewalk reconstruction. If you have been to Bloor Street lately, you can vouch for how sorely the street needs a good sidewalk repair. And despite all the promises over the past three years, it appears a sidewalk repair is all we’re going to get for our “great shopping street”.

A couple more renders of the snooze fest after the jump.

Where did the benches go?

This is one exciting gateway into Toronto’s “Great Shopping Street”

Fraser Institute: Toronto in Decline; Me: Laughs

The Fraser Institute released a report yesterday entitled “Is Toronto in Decline?”, using census data to show that Toronto is losing its competitive edge in the business world and is headed for economic doom. Well, maybe it wasn’t that dire, but it is yet another attack on Toronto and Ontario as bad places for business (remember Jim’s tirades earlier this year?). When I first read this yesterday, I couldn’t help but laugh. Why? Read on.

First, this report was co-authored by Mike Harris. You may remember him (as much as it pains many of us to) as Ontario’s dear (Conservative) leader during the early 90s. He was the one who slashed funding to municipalities, canceled the Eglinton Subway, and downloaded provincial responsibilities to the cities. Oh, he’s the one who had the bright idea of the megacity as well. So for him to come along and berate Toronto is utterly abhorrent. He was the cause of many of Toronto’s ills, which the city is slowly inching its way out of today.

Secondly, the report was released by the Fraser Institute, the west-biased, conservative ‘think’ tank that routinely bashes any progressive policy and worse yet, progressive cities (see: “Unlivable Strategies: The Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Livable Region Strategic Plan”). How much credence should we be giving this type of organization?

The reports main findings are questionable as well, as quoted from their website:

• Torontonians are worried their city is losing its edge compared to other major Canadian business centers.
• The city of Toronto’s median income has sunk below the national average. In the 2001 census, median income in Toronto was 106 percent of the national average; in the 2006 census, it was below the national average at 96 percent.
• Management occupations in Toronto, which may be viewed as a proxy for the city’s health as a business centre, have been on the decline.
• The negative trend is visible not only in Toronto, but also across the province as a whole. Median income in Ontario grewby 10 percent over the period compared to 16 percent nationally. Moreover, Ontario saw a decline in the number of management occupations over the most recent census period.

First, Toronto has been losing its edge, but not nationally, but regionally. Cheap, abundant land and lower business tax rates in the 905 has led to the bleeding of jobs into the surrounding region. However, this is already slowly changing, as Toronto is shifting its tax rates from business onto residential, to maintain competitiveness. The 905, on the other hand, will have no choice as their development charge bonaza ends, to start increasing business taxes, as the residents there already have a significant burden. This will help balance the region, and in turn, attract more jobs into the central city. Note that this is completely separate from the fact that in today’s ‘creative class’ economy, more companies are choosing to locate within the central city to attract young professionals, who are more inclined to demand a downtown working environment.

Secondly is the assertion that Toronto’s median income has dropped below the national average and has increased at a slower rate than cities like Edmonton, Calgary, and Saskatoon. This is true, but the argument that it means Toronto is on decline is absurd. Those three centres are among the fastest growing in the nation and have faced unprecedented growth and inflationary pressures. Home and rental costs are through the roof and labour shortages are becoming a chronic problem. So when the free market is working in this environment, of course wages and salaries are going to increase at a much higher rate than a relatively stable market like Toronto and the GGH. Finally, the GGH continues to take on the greatest proportion of the country’s immigrants, which command lower wages than the general population, causing the median to skew lower than elsewhere as well.

And that’s where the whole report loses its argument. And I wonder: wouldn’t lower costs and more available labour make Toronto more attractive to business? What about the 20 or so universities that line the 401 corridor that churn out thousands of qualified graduates every year might help too? And the fact that Toronto is one of the most diverse, attractive, and exciting cities in the nation? This report ignores all that and focuses solely on the numbers. Toronto is an attractive place to do business. It’s an attractive place to live. I love Edmonton, my hometown, but nothing short of absolute meltdown will make me leave Toronto.

TTC’s New and (Un)Improved Subway Map

thanks to wyliepoon off UrbanToronto for the improved photo

The TTC has pretty much had the same look subway map for the past several years, ever since they migrated from the disastrous station-name-in-line-colour days. The map was changed after the opening of the Sheppard Subway, since the purple line made station names really difficult to read on the map, and the text started to be in white, which is much more legible.

The form and the typeface on the map hasn’t really changed since, but they have posted a new map on average twice a year since then, as more stations have become accessible. It’s not like it was perfect, but it did its job, and was fairly easy to comprehend.

Last week on the subway, I saw that there was a new iteration of the map posted up on the trains… and I couldn’t help but squirm a bit. They have replaced a fairly legible Arial-like typeface (Joe Clark would say it’s Swis721 BT, I’m not absolutely sure in this case) with a somewhat less legible Bold-Condensed Arial-like typeface with what appears to be very inconsistent letter spacing.

The Old Map (Left) and the New Map (Right)

The worst part of it, though, is how they denote the location of the station under the name. On the old map (above, left), the location would be provided by the street number on Yonge (or Bloor, or Danforth) that the station’s cross street is at. That provided the most useful information, because, if you’re going to say, 1200 Yonge, you know to get off at Summerhill, since it’s at 1189 Yonge Street. This also complimented the TTC’s station naming convention, which is always based on the nearest cross street the station is on (with a few exceptions).

This new map removes this convenient feature. Instead of “1189” under Summerhill, for example, it now says “10 Shaftsbury Ave”, which is the true station address, but where actually is that? The worst part is the redundancy that has resulted for the stations at Wellesley, College, Dundas, Queen, and King, as they all have address on their respective streets, see below.

There really wasn’t anything wrong with the old map (well, there may be)… and there seems to be a lot wrong with this one… will they change it back the next time around?

EDIT: This has been posted onto Spacing and commenters note that the addresses aren’t even right. St Andrew station is on King Street West but is shown to be on King Street East, and Castle Frank station is on Bloor Street East but shown to be on Bloor Street West. Oh dear.

Bigger view of map after the jump…