Although the Toronto metropolitan region performs well relative to its North American counterparts in terms of density and public-transit use, it does not derive as much walking and public-transit patronage benefit from its high-residential-density areas as it could. The impact of residential density on journey patterns is limited by an imperfect juxtaposition of density and public-transit service peaks. Another impediment is the difficulty of associating density with other variables needed for it to translate into increased walking and public-transit modal shares. We attribute this situation to insufficient planning capacity owing in large part to generalized neighbourhood opposition to high-density residential developments and disagreement between levels of government. In this paper we both narrate events of relevance to the distribution of high residential density over the last five decades and analyze present relationships between high-density areas and journey patterns. We conclude by discussing the possibility of achieving residential-density layouts and distributions that are more conducive to walking and public-transit use than the tower-in-the-park model and the scattering of high-density pockets, both of which predominate in Toronto.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Planning Association, 1998The Principles of Smart Development Planning Advisory Report No. 479 (American Planning Association, Chicago, IL)
2.
ArmstrongJ, 1993, “Toronto backs on housing proposal”Toronto Star 26 March, page A6
3.
BadoeDAMillerEJ, 2000, “Transportation-land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implication for modeling”Transportation Research Part D5235–263
4.
BagleyMVMokhtarianPL, 2002, “The impact of residential neighbourhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach”The Annals of Regional Science36279–297
5.
BanisterDWatsonSWoodC, 1997, “Sustainable cities: transport, energy, and urban form”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24125–143
6.
BernickM, 1993, “The Bay Area's emerging transit-based housing”Urban Land52 (July) 38–41
7.
BoarnetMGCompionNS, 1996Transit-oriented Development in San Diego County: Incrementally Implementing a Comprehensive Idea UCTC No. 343, The University of California Transportation Center, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
8.
BoarnetMGCraneR, 2001The Influence of Urban Form on Travel (Oxford University Press, New York)
9.
BourneLS, 1967Private Redevelopment of the Central City: Processes of Structural Change in the City of TorontoDepartment of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
10.
BourneLS, 1991, “The Roepke lecture—recycling urban systems and metropolitan areas: a geographical agenda for the 1990s and beyond”Economic Geography67185–209
11.
BourneL, 1992, “Self-fulfilling prophecies? Decentralization, inner city decline, and the quality of urban life”Journal of the American Planning Association58509–513
12.
CalthorpeP, 1993The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream (Princeton Architectural Press, New York)
13.
CerveroR, 1994, “Transit-based housing in California: evidence on ridership impacts”Transport Policy3174–183
14.
CerveroR, 1996, “Mixed land uses and commuting: evidence from the American housing survey”Transportation Research A30361–377
15.
CerveroR, 2002, “Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework”Transportation Research Part D7265–284
16.
CerveroRDuncanM, 2002Residential Self Selection and Rail Commuting: A Nested Logit AnalysisUniversity of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, CA, http://www.uctc.net/papers/604.pdf
17.
CerveroRKockelmanK, 1997, “Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design”Transportation Research Part D2199–219
18.
City of Mississauga, 1978The Official Plan of the City of Mississuaga Subsidiary Planning Area report by the Planning Department, City of Mississauga, 300 City Centre Drive, Mississauga, ON L5B 3C1
19.
City of Toronto, 1977Central Area Plan report by the Planning Board, available at Toronto Urban Affairs Library, Metro Hall, Mezzanine Level, 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
20.
City of Toronto, 2002Toronto Official Plan available at Toronto Urban Affairs Library, Metro Hall, Mezzanine Level, 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
21.
City of Vaughan, 1982Kleinberg – Nashville Community Plan City of Vaughan, 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive, Vaughan, ON L6A 1T1
22.
CraneR, 2000, “The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive review”Journal of Planning Literature153–23
23.
Data Management Group, 1997Transportation Tomorrow Survey, Design and Conduct of the SurveyUniversity of Toronto Joint Program in Transportation, 35 St George Street, Room 305, Toronto, ON M5S 1A4, http://www.jpint.utoronto.ca/PDF/docs61.html
EwingECerveroR, 2001, “Travel and the built environment: a synthesis”Transportation Research Record number 1780, 87–114
26.
FilionP, 2001, “Suburban mixed-use centres and urban dispersion: what difference do they make?”Environment and Planning A33141–160
27.
FilionPBuntingTMcSpurrenKTseA, 2004, “Metropolitan density patterns, convergence or divergence? A Canada–US comparison”Urban Geography2542–65
28.
FriskenF, 1991, “The contribution of metropolitan government to the success of Toronto's public transit system: an empirical dissent from the public choice paradigm”Urban Affairs Quarterly27268–292
29.
Globe and Mail1961, “Burlap on silk: oppose Deer Park Apartments”, 31 October, page 5
30.
HoltzclawJ, 1994Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and CostsNatural Resources Defense Council, 11 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA 94104
31.
IsinEF, 1998, “Governing Toronto without government: liberalism and neoliberalism”Studies in Political Economy56169–192
32.
KeilR, 1998, “Toronto in the 1990s: dissociated governance”Studies in Political Economy56151–168
33.
KitamuraRMokhtarianPLLaidetL, 1997, “A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area”Transportation24125–158
34.
KrizekKJ, 2000, “Pretest–posttest strategy for researching neighborhood-scale urban form and travel behavior”Transportation Research Record number 1722, 48–55
35.
KrizekKJ, 2003, “Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter?”Journal of the American Planning Association69265–281
36.
KrizekKJWaddellP, 2002, “Analysis of lifestyle choice: neighborhood type, travel patterns, and activity participation”Transportation Research Record number 1802, 119–128
37.
LevinsonDMKumarA, 1997, “Density and the journey to work”Growth and Change28147–172
38.
LighthallWD, 2003, “Swap clears way for High Park condo: three-way deal allows building eight stories high Gothic Avenue”Toronto Star 16 August, page 5
39.
Local Government Commission, 2003Creating Great Neighborhood: Density in Your Community (US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC)
40.
LuscherDR, 1995, “Transit-oriented development as congestion-reduction strategy in the San Francisco Bay Area”Berkeley Planning Journal1055–74
41.
Metro Toronto, available from Toronto Urban Affairs Library, Metro Hall, Mezzanine Level, 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 1966The Study of Apartment Distribution and Apartment Densities in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area report by the Planning Board
42.
Metro Toronto, available from Toronto Urban Affairs Library, Metro Hall, Mezzanine Level, 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 1967Report of the Proposed Apartment Development Control Policy report by the Planning Board
43.
Metro Toronto, available from Toronto Urban Affairs Library, Metro Hall, Mezzanine Level, 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 1968Report No. 13 of the Legislation and Planning Committee: Metropolitan Control Policy and Amendment No. 15 of the Metropolitan Plan—Appendix A to the Minutes of Council
44.
Metro Toronto, available from Toronto Urban Affairs Library, Metro Hall, Mezzanine Level, 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 1979Land Use: A Staff Report Submitted to the Joint Metro/TTC Transit Policy Committee report by the Planning Department, Land Use Task Team
45.
Metro Toronto, available from Toronto Urban Affairs Library, Metro Hall, Mezzanine Level, 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 1981Official Plan for the Urban Structure
46.
Metro Toronto, available from Toronto Urban Affairs Library, Metro Hall, Mezzanine Level, 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 1994Official Plan of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto: the Livable Metropolis
47.
MillerGEmeneuJFarrowJ, 1997Greater Toronto Area Urban Structure: An Analysis of Progress towards the VisionCanadian Urban Institute, 100 Lombard Street, Suite 400, Toronto, ON M5C 1M3
48.
MurdieRA, 1994, “Social polarization and public housing in Canada: a case study of the Metropolitan Housing Authority”, in The Changing Canadian Metropolis: A Public Policy Perspective Ed. FriskenF (Canadian Urban Institute, Toronto, ON, and Institute of Governmental Studies, Berkeley, CA) pp 293–339
49.
NewmanPWGKenworthyJR, 1989, “Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of US cities with a global survey”Journal of the American Planning Association5524–37
50.
NewmanPWGKenworthyJR, 1996, “The land use–transportation connection”Land Use Policy131–22
51.
NowlanDMSteuartG, 1991, “Downtown population growth and commuting trips: recent experience in Toronto”Journal of the American Planning Association57165–182
52.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc., 1997Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection TR8, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, OR
53.
PerlAPucherJ, 1995, “Transit in trouble? The policy challenge posed by Canada's changing urban mobility”Canadian Public Policy21261–283
54.
PushkarevBZupanJ, 1977Public Transportation and Land Use Policy (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN)
55.
RoodT, 1998The Local Index of Transit Availability: An Implementation ManualLocal Government Commission, 1414 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
56.
RoseA, 1972Government Metropolitan Toronto: A Social and Political Analysis 1953–1971 (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
57.
ShimkoL, 1989, “Three-pronged housing strategy pressed on Ontario municipalities”Globe and Mail 8 August, page A1
58.
Statistics Canada, 2003Commuting Flow, Census Metropolitan Area and Census Agglomeration Cat. 97-C0042, Statistics Canada, RH Coats Building, Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa, ON K1A 0T6
59.
SteinerRL, 1994, “Residential density and travel patterns: review of the literature”Transportation Research Record number 1466, 37–43
60.
Toronto Star1964, “Lamport blasts zoning body, charges ‘flagrant abuse’ of law”, 17 March, page 19
WilliamsG, 1999, “Institutional capacity and metropolitan governance: the Greater Toronto Area”Cities16171–180
63.
ZhaoFLiM-TChowL-FChanAShenD, 2002FSUTMS (Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure) Mode Choice Modeling: Factors Affecting Transit Use and Access—Final ReportNational Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
