Arguably the 'left' swung to the populist side of politics in the last provincial election, not necessarily disproving Rainforest's thesis.
However, I am not convinced by the argument either. Conservatives, most notably Bill Davis' provincial progressive conservatives, have also been involved with significant transit expansion and transit-based social engineering. Conservatives in Europe are certainly no enemies of bike lanes and competing alternative transportation choices either.
I think the real source of division is how you perceive your role in society and this transcends political ideologies. Do you consider yourself a citizen of a community and city? Or are you just a taxpayer and nothing more? It just so happens that certain populist ideologues (like the Fords) gear their message to appeal to one group or the other.
There really is no ideological reason to chose one type of transit over the other, mainly because transit choices are not inherent political creatures. They are made political by willing populists, hence why conservatives here hate bike lanes while conservatives in Europe promote building bike lanes as with everyone else in the political spectrum there.
~ Resident Midtown elitist
With regards to transit, the debate is more along the lines of collectivism vs. individualism.
LRTs serve more people and is cost effective, but subways have immediate gratification for those in power as well as it being a vote grab.
Urban planning experts focus on cost-effectiveness and maximizing reach to potential commuters, while politicians focus on winning votes.
There is a good reason as to why politicians are much better remembered than urban planning experts. Not everyone is an urban geography major.
Last edited by Johnny Au; 2015-Apr-12 at 16:29.
Um... Metrolinx is against the DRL since when?
Metrolinx was created in April 2006 (under the name GTTA). Just over a year after its creation the Prov (and I guess by default, GTAA/Metrolinx) released MoveOntario 2020 with an $11.5bn funding commitment. None of MO2020’s 52 projects included any kind of DRL. IMO it’s a pretty big oversight on the Prov’s part to propose extending Yonge all the way up to Richmond Hill, but not to consider Yonge’s capacity issues.
Then in 2008 we had the Big Move published – where a duly noted DRL finally was included. Unfortunately it was only as the short section up to B/D, and it was also relegated as a non-priority (#48) to be built sometime in their 15-25 year timeframe. So an entire decade (or more) after Yonge’s extension to RHC. Again, this is a big oversight.
As well, in 2014 Metrolinx Chair Pritchard said that we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves, or seize on one solution for a relief line. That the line may "potentially" involve a subway, but that it will also 'involve buses'.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, and "against" is the wrong word to use. But it doesn’t sound like the Prov/Metrolinx supports the DRL all that much. And considering our current situation where SmartTrack has somehow become this city’s top priority, and it has a "relief" moniker attached to it; my guess is that Stouffville RER is assumed by the Prov (and York Region, unsurprisingly) to provide adequate relief. Or at the very least enough relief so as to get the Markham Subway started ASAP. As well, Metrolinx’s Yonge Relief Network Study has apparently been put on hold – which perhaps might explain why Metrolinx’s relief findings won’t be released this Spring as originally promised.
Very interesting article and map posted here: http://www.humantransit.org/2015/04/...-unveiled.html
San Francisco has redone it's transit map in a clear visual hierarchy, based on speed and frequency. There is some segmentation based on route type (different colouring for cable cars, etc), but the line weight is a function of frequency. If the popularity of TTC express routes catches on, I can definitely see this type of map being very useful.
Even just at a glance, you can immediately grasp the hierarchy of transit routes that the map is trying to portray. Faster routes are red, slower routes are blue. Routes along major arteries with frequent service are thicker, minor routes are thinner. The Muni Metro is coloured a single colour, with only the letters to identify the branches (which simplifies the look of the Market St Subway immensely).
Taking a stab at creating a Toronto map like this would be a massive undertaking, and to be honest I don't have the proper base map to even start with something like that, as Google Earth imagery wouldn't be appropriate, nor would using something diagrammatic. If anyone has a base image of Toronto that is similar to the base image of that map though, I'd be interested in giving it a try.
Here's the link to the full resolution image: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/.../Final_Map.pdf
The TTC already does something similar with our system map. But using colours to differentiate frequency is a good idea. The only issue is that our rapid transit lines would need to be the same colour.