GenerationW
Senior Member
We had a comprehensive long-range transit plan which claimed to be the result of evidence-based planning. This plan came to the conclusion that a DRL was completely unnecessary. I'd love to hear how anyone can justify that as being "correct", especially when many of the people who pushed Transit City are now crying that this "wasteful" B-D extension will delay the one thing we absolutely need far more than anything else........(wait for it)........a DRL.So there's no possibility that "the left" might actually be...correct? That is, that subways are a fiscal excess given the demand on the corridors they have been proposed, that there are other more pressing funding priorities, and that it better to spend money on bringing a lot of medium-volume transit solutions to a lot of people rather than focus on one or two extremely expensive high-volume projects for areas that don't necessarily warrant the capacity?
TC was a complete break from subways, which meant promoting a brand-new network of LRTs and nothing else. No way Miller was going to put a subway on a TC map.Miller should have put the Spadina extension, which he budgeted for (roughly ~$750M in 2013 dollars) onto the Transit City map.
And Miller was not exactly the most enthusiastic backer of Spadina. He had no choice other than to accept it once Queen's Park and Ottawa signed on, but Karen Stintz was actually far more active lobbying for Spadina through her unofficial capacity advising York Region.