Smitherman's Transit plan

[Rainforest]

Well if that's true, what will Queen's Park and Metrolinx do if he wins? Tell him he's got $X billion to spend on whatever lines he wants? Put the squeeze on him to build what they want? Nothing?

Queen's Park will not force transit lines upon the City if it no longer wants them. It would be a bad electoral strategy for any provincial party.

However, Queen's Park might withdraw the funding if the scope of projects changes significantly ... defer it for "a further study" and never come back to the table.

 

[Dan416]

Queen's Park will not force transit lines upon the City if it no longer wants them. It would be a bad electoral strategy for any provincial party.

However, Queen's Park might withdraw the funding if the scope of projects changes significantly ... defer it for "a further study" and never come back to the table.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Queen's Park has a set amount they want to spend, what it's spent on is more or less left to the city. What Toronto (i.e. Miller) wanted, Miller got. Deferred, but that's beyond the point.

 

[Asterix]

93% of Torontonians polled by the Toronto Star stated subways as their preferred choice. The populist candidate has run on a mandate of listening to the constituents, not on what politicians want to force down the public's throats and through their backyards. No one wants the imposition of building a surface "streetcar" line through their neighbourhood, no one beyond a fringe percentage of citizens.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here, let alone in society at large who, in a perfect world, would want LRTs over subways. It would be great if there were a subway right outside my door that would take me right to where I want to go.

But the thing for all those derisively labeled as 'LRTistas', is that subways cost a heck of a lot more than surface rail and in most cases, there just isn't the demand to justify subway level of spending, let alone the fact that there isn't subway level of funding available.

One of Ford's problems on this issue is the blatant contradiction in the financial aspect. He's made his mark as a guy who'll cut any kind of major spending. Yet he's presented no rational solution for how 'subways for all' will be paid for. There certainly isn't a pot of gold waiting to be made by selling 'air rights' for land over stations that the city or TTC do not currently own.

His platform so far appears to be cutting city revenues by eliminating or reducing various taxes, and then increasing spending by building 'subways for all'. Given the current budget deficit environment, just how does this math work for a fiscal conservative?

 

[GraphicMatt]

To be fair, though, you'd have to think pretty hard to recall a recent example of a self-proclaimed fiscally conservative government who didn't create or add to a significant deficit. It's kind of par for the course.

 

[gweed123]

Lol. "A line or so in the next decade...", um isn't that precisely what SOS has been after all along? If we could get a line to the airport and another line to Scarborough Town Centre completed within this decade, would that not be a remarkable feat of the right mix of political will and fiscally responsible building protocol? I ask you this seriously because I'm wondering what it is you even stand for at this point.

Not really. SOS wants a series of subway lines built immediately using the current TC funds, and then progressive subway expansion beyond that. I don't doubt his ability to cancel Transit City, I doubt his ability (or rather his will) to replace it with actual subway expansion. We may get a subway to STC, but that's all I really expect. If he wins and happens to actually deliver more, I'll be impressed, and be happy to eat my words. But until then, I have my doubts.

My point is simply that politicians say stuff to get elected that they don't really mean. Obama made a big deal about re-opening negotiations on NAFTA, but really he had no interest what-so-ever in doing so. Ford says he wants subways across the city, yet I believe he has no intention what-so-ever of actually doing so. You quoted a Star poll regarding subways. To me that just screams to a candidate like Ford "if I promise subways, even if it's an empty promise, people will vote for me!". For a candidate that is actually serious about subway expansion, that's a huge boost. But for someone who is just looking to grab naive voters, that poll is quite dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, I want subway expansion, but I also want a candidate who pledges to build subways to actually follow through with their promise, and not just pander to people's want of subways to get votes.

Harper said he would lead a more open and transparent government. His actions have clearly shown that he's doing the exact opposite. I believe Ford is doing using the same kind of tactic.

Instead of belittling me for looking at the big picture here and seeing that the TC agenda will go through so long as Toronto/Ontario continues to elect in self-interested union-loving career politicians; need I remind certain individuals that’s posting here that the window of opportunity to present Rob Ford with your suggestions for subway expansion is still very open for business (unlike the nonresponsive Thomson/Smitherman campaigns)? Time wasted here arguing with (or on behalf of) LRTistas ad nauseum won’t change anything, getting a frontrunner mayoral candidate n’sync with your viewpoints can.

I think your looking at the big picture is blinding you to the fact that the person who's holding up the "big picture" has no intention of actually making it a reality. He'll cut services left and right "to pay for subway expansion", and then find some BS reason to say "we can't do it, sorry", and then not restore the funding to those programs that were cut.

 

[ssiguy2]

Even if Jupiter's DRL line is complete by 2030 it will still leave Toronto with a pathetically small subway system compared to any other city for it's size in the industrial world. In fact many large 3rd world cities will be way beyond Toronto's meagre attempt at rapid/mass transit including all Chinese and Indian cities. China is building Metros at a dizzying rate and India Metros and Monorails.
Although both countries have Metros with large under ground systems most of their Metros and, of course Monorails, are elevated or at grade. This why I have always been a fan of Monorail as it is the cheapest, safest, less visually intrusive of all at grade/elevated systems.
Whether it's technology or how it is applied City Hall better start to radically alter this stupid idea that any subway must be tunneled and must be open to alternative technologies, City Hall's myopic view of transit has gone a long way to creating the inertia that permeates the place.
Sometimes you need a strong mayor who is willing to stand up and tell the locals to go to hell if they bitch due to trains going by too quickly but were stupid enough to buy a house by a railway track.
Miller was a gutless wonder. The idea of TC wouldn't have been my first choice but it could have greatly improved Toronto transit. When, however, push came to shove he didn't want to make the transit inconvinent for anyone so instead of building flyovers he was allowing the streetcars to stop at all light, stop for left hand turns and placed the stops every 2 to 3 blocks so no one would have to walk more than 2 minutes to a station.
York U demanded that anything near their lands has to be tunneled and no one had the balls to tell them that if they want a tunnel they came damn well pay the difference in price.
Ford sounds like a bit of a dink but having a strong, assertive mayor with some balls might be exactly what Toronto needs.

 

[fanoftoronto]

The only thing that I can't comprehend is that of all the transit proposals in the last century, it HAD to be TC that got full funding!! But you never can trust the Provincial government, 2011 is the year that will decide if TC stays or gets cut. Remeber Mike Harris??

 

[gweed123]

The only thing that I can't comprehend is that of all the transit proposals in the last century, it HAD to be TC that got full funding!! But you never can trust the Provincial government, 2011 is the year that will decide if TC stays or gets cut. Remeber Mike Harris??

I know. Just think of what the city would be like if Network 2011 got the same level of agreement as TC did? The final phases of Network 2011 would be opening in the next couple of months, or would already be open by now. At this point we could then be talking about incremental subway expansion, or the odd LRT/BRT line to fill in the gaps left by the primary network.

 

[Rainforest]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Queen's Park has a set amount they want to spend, what it's spent on is more or less left to the city. What Toronto (i.e. Miller) wanted, Miller got. Deferred, but that's beyond the point.

Queen's Park also wants to cut the provinvial debt. In 2007 - 2008, transit expansion was a hot topic, so they were willing to invest. Now, fiscal austerity is taking the lead, and the provincial government will look good if it cuts a billion or two from its expenditures.

If any transit project is cancelled and the funding is not immediately directed towards another transit project, there is no guarantee that an equivalent amount will be spent on transit in future.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Doesn't mean transit is dead as an issue just because fiscal conservatism is rising. A little under half the province's population stay in the GTHA. And one of their biggest concerns is public transit and congestion. Whatever government is in power has to address this sooner or later.

 

[LAz]

The only thing that I can't comprehend is that of all the transit proposals in the last century, it HAD to be TC that got full funding!!

Well lets think about the stuff... these other plans were actually things that would provide a serious alternative to the menace - aka automobile. There is major opposition from the promoters of this urban manace... the tire manufacturers, petrol companies, car companies, asphalt dudes, and you name it...

...TC is merely sub-par transit, at the best. Slow, stupid, and not a real competitor to the car. Hence, this got the funding. My theory makes sense to me.

is that subways cost a heck of a lot more than surface rail and in most cases, there just isn't the demand to justify subway level of spending, let alone the fact that there isn't subway level of funding available.

If TC can get billions, shouldn't a metro plan get that too?
It's not that hard. Hell, look, let it be a watered down metro plan - even that is an improvement over traming up the toronto.

 

[Rainforest]

^ Doesn't mean transit is dead as an issue just because fiscal conservatism is rising. A little under half the province's population stay in the GTHA. And one of their biggest concerns is public transit and congestion. Whatever government is in power has to address this sooner or later.

They will not cut transit expansion down to zero, but the scope can be reduced.

SELRT as case in point: if it could be cancelled with the funds being immediately redirected to another transit project, for example DRL subway if it was shovel-ready or close to that point - then perhaps it would be a good strategy to cancel it.

However, if SELRT is cancelled and the funding is left up in the air, with an implicit hope that it will count towards DRL in future - chances are that this funding will be used to cut provincial debt and not for anything transit-related.

The only advantage of cancellation would be keeping the corridor available for eventual subway extension. But because of many competing priorities, it could be 20 or 30 years, or more, before that happens.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Well lets think about the stuff... these other plans were actually things that would provide a serious alternative to the menace - aka automobile. There is major opposition from the promoters of this urban manace... the tire manufacturers, petrol companies, car companies, asphalt dudes, and you name it...

...TC is merely sub-par transit, at the best. Slow, stupid, and not a real competitor to the car. Hence, this got the funding. My theory makes sense to me..

It doesn't really. People who love their cars are huge proponents of subway projects because it will get all that icky surface transit out of the way and open up the roads to automobile traffic.

 

[junctionist]

It doesn't really. People who love their cars are huge proponents of subway projects because it will get all that icky surface transit out of the way and open up the roads to automobile traffic.

No, people who enjoy driving and don't have commutes more appropriate for GO Transit know that subways are very convenient. Subways run in at least five minute intervals at any time of the day in enclosed stations. Drivers hate the frustration of idling in traffic or driving across an arterial barely hitting 40 before the next packed intersection. The subway provides represents a familiar grade-separated alternative to such frustrating commutes. Drivers will use the subway but also know that when it comes to driving with the family or to do a big shopping run, there will also be less congestion and left turns won't be restricted in favour of awkward u-turns at intersections to get around the ROW.

Only a very small minority are the "you'll never see me on transit, but build a subway so I won't inconvenienced" types.

 

[gweed123]

No, people who enjoy driving and don't have commutes more appropriate for GO Transit know that subways are very convenient. Subways run in at least five minute intervals at any time of the day in enclosed stations. Drivers hate the frustration of idling in traffic or driving across an arterial barely hitting 40 before the next packed intersection. The subway provides represents a familiar grade-separated alternative to such frustrating commutes. Drivers will use the subway but also know that when it comes to driving with the family or to do a big shopping run, there will also be less congestion and left turns won't be restricted in favour of awkward u-turns at intersections to get around the ROW.

Only a very small minority are the "you'll never see me on transit, but build a subway so I won't inconvenienced" types.

Shhhhhh, you're ruining the "pro-subway people are actually anti-transit people" narrative they're trying so hard to set up. I myself have been branded with this shabby excuse for reasoning. I support subways, therefore I must be anti-transit, because God forbid the trains actually run at a different grade than the cars do. No, nevermind the facts that show that grade-seperated transit systems have higher capacities, and are capable of higher frequencies than at-grade transit systems. No, supporting that kind of crazy transit system makes me anti-transit, clearly.