Transit City Plan

[js97]

The Toronto Environmental Alliance released an infographic today comparing Ford's plan with Transit City:

Large size

Are you guys serious about the Transit city comparison?

Is that not the biggest piece of PROPOGANDA ever produced by a supposed 'credible' source?
How can you knowlingly spread a piece of literature so inaccurate and misleading?

If you're going to compare, at least use the SAME amount of Kilometres OR SAME COST BASIS.

4 of the Transit city lines on that image does not exist/has no funding (Lakeshore, Jane, Donmills, Eglinton extension to shepperd)

Yes, subways cost more per kilometer, but really?

The amount of gaping holes...

You can put Sarah Thomsons subway over rob fords and the financial figures will be the same.. ugh..to busy at work to deal with it.

No point. Nice graphics though, I guess you're appealling to the artists type, not the analytical ones.

 

[gweed123]

GM, what if the Red line were to have the effect of increasing overall demand on lines that cross it -- including streetcar lines that partly parallel the proposed route? (Oh... gweed just said it better.)

--
Anyway, it's super-moot if DRL has little political traction. What bothers me more is that all the energy opposed to surface transit improvements, including from some on this board, is feeding a de facto ban on any on-street BRT or LRT upgrades with 416.

Even in a 'best case' compromise under Ford, we might get two routes (Eglinton underground, BD extension) that can justify their cost in short order, and perhaps one or two more that might reach potential in 50 years... (Sheppard). In the meantime, most other surface routes face increasing mixed-traffic congestion and attendant drops in trip speed, efficiency and reliability.

How many corridors are we talking about that justify surface upgrades now, or will within Ford's four-year mandate? 5, 10, 15? Is that four years without any new transit lanes -- even queue jump lanes -- in Toronto? Why are we not having this discussion -- or is it only worth having after the Sheppard/Eglinton/BD to STC fight is over?

Seems like narrow-minded planning.

-ed

Very good points. I personally think that outside of rapid transit expansion, small changes like queue jump lanes at busy intersections can go a long way to improving the reliability and speed of existing bus routes. Even if queue jump lanes on a route only reduce route times by a minute or two, the perception will be that you're travelling faster than traffic is. And when it comes to passenger comfort and attitude, perception is reality. You don't need rapid transit on every corridor in order to have an effective transit system, you just need to make the transit seem rapid.

 

[gweed123]

The answer to your question is Mel Lastman mostly. And a bit Jack Layton.

Mel was a bombastic personality with a deep love for his community of North York. In his eyes, it DESERVED a subway line because it was so great. He worked for years to get one, even when it was clear that any line built there would be a short stub.

In the 80s, the downtown progressive bloc led by Layton was very much all about limiting new developments in the core. The Downtown Relief Proposed at the time then was thus viewed as something that would drive more nasty development. So the progressives pushed for the TTC to focus their transit development in the suburbs.

This is kind of a facile explanation - it goes a lot deeper than this - but that's the short version.

That sums it up nicely. Probably one of the few times in politics where far right and far left teamed up together to kill (and in turn promote another) project.

 

[Asterix]

Are you serious? Public transportation by its definition is NOT financially efficient/viable.

There is a difference between being financially efficient and financially viable. On its own, public transit is not financially viable, but that doesn't mean that it can't be financially efficient with the funds we do spend on it. Would it be financially efficient to build heliports on every block and buy the helicopters so I can chop my commute my 90%?

Similarly, as the link posted by posters just above says, "the subway extension would provide less service per dollar invested than the existing light rail rapid transit plan". Less service per dollar invested means less financially efficient.

You want a real fight, look at the tunelling their doing all the way up to York University, to richmond hill on yonge (density much?)

Vaughan extension is underway. I'm not about to advocate they waste more money filling in the holes. Yonge extension is only being discussed abstractly. Toronto council has a motion to ask for the DRL before a Yonge extension so that fight certainly hasn't gotten underway.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The Toronto Environmental Alliance released an infographic today comparing Ford's plan with Transit City:

Large size

Gibberish...now in visual format! Flemmington Park...misspelled and relocated to Flemingdon Park for your delight and bemusement!

What's the total cost of the plan on the left? Who knows! Who cares! If we had funding in place in a savings account slated for the left plan that we could use for something else, we could build at least two competing versions of the right plan...and that would still be less redundant than 3 light rail lines to Malvern. Or, we could build the right plan and then add all of Eglinton, or Eglinton and Finch, or Finch, Don Mills, and the waterfront, or some other combination. But then the TEA couldn't draw up such a stupid and misleading "info"graphic.

Someone at, say, McCowan & Lawrence that takes the SRT every day is apparently not "served" by the Danforth extension. So, are they currently being "served" by an SRT that forces them to transfer 2 or 3 minutes after they got on it to continue on in the same direction? 10 e-dollars says 630,000 is counting everything near Union Station, which will be "served" by the waterfront line.

 

[gweed123]

Gibberish...now in visual format! Flemmington Park...misspelled and relocated to Flemingdon Park for your delight and bemusement!

What's the total cost of the plan on the left? Who knows! Who cares! If we had funding in place in a savings account slated for the left plan that we could use for something else, we could build at least two competing versions of the right plan...and that would still be less redundant than 3 light rail lines to Malvern. Or, we could build the right plan and then add all of Eglinton, or Eglinton and Finch, or Finch, Don Mills, and the waterfront, or some other combination. But then the TEA couldn't draw up such a stupid and misleading "info"graphic.

Someone at, say, McCowan & Lawrence that takes the SRT every day is apparently not "served" by the Danforth extension. So, are they currently being "served" by an SRT that forces them to transfer 2 or 3 minutes after they got on it to continue on in the same direction? 10 e-dollars says 630,000 is counting everything near Union Station, which will be "served" by the waterfront line.

As a leftie, I'm always a bit confused when people on the right make the whole "liberal propaganda" argument to describe what I would call "reality". However, after seeing that poster, I for once agree with them. "Look 'ma! No facts!"

 

[JoeParez]

Gibberish...now in visual format! Flemmington Park...misspelled and relocated to Flemingdon Park for your delight and bemusement!

What's the total cost of the plan on the left? Who knows! Who cares! If we had funding in place in a savings account slated for the left plan that we could use for something else, we could build at least two competing versions of the right plan...and that would still be less redundant than 3 light rail lines to Malvern. Or, we could build the right plan and then add all of Eglinton, or Eglinton and Finch, or Finch, Don Mills, and the waterfront, or some other combination. But then the TEA couldn't draw up such a stupid and misleading "info"graphic.

Someone at, say, McCowan & Lawrence that takes the SRT every day is apparently not "served" by the Danforth extension. So, are they currently being "served" by an SRT that forces them to transfer 2 or 3 minutes after they got on it to continue on in the same direction? 10 e-dollars says 630,000 is counting everything near Union Station, which will be "served" by the waterfront line.

Also, they seem to think that funding is in place for all the TC networks; seems to neglect that fact that only Sheppard, Finch and Eglinton were funded. Which in reality would look exactly like the plan on the right, we the exception of Eglinton running right though the middle.

This is same the short sighted, knee jerk reactions that I hate; but you have to be rebellious and cool right?
Probably the same people who made the "I slept with Adam Giambrone" buttons, "I survived the Toronto earthquake" and "Bike riding, Left Wing Pinko" t-shirts. (FYI, I am not out to get anyone -- just that if you're going to do something that means to draw attention or cause awareness, put some thought and research behind it don't do it to be ironic or rebellious; that's how I feel).

 

[GraphicMatt]

To be fair, it's an infographic designed to show that Ford's transit plan sucks and it's pretty effective at doing that.

 

[gweed123]

To be fair, it's an infographic designed to show that Ford's transit plan sucks and it's pretty effective at doing that.

But it's contrasting TC a full Transit City as the alternative. It's not. A stripped-down Transit City is the alternative. If showing the current Transit City weakens your case, then it weakens your case. At least be honest about it. Heck, you could show the full Transit City plan on the left and the current funded one on the right, and make the exact same comparison, and people would naturally prefer the one on the left. It's specifically geared to be deceptive to the average person.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

To be fair, it's an infographic designed to show that Ford's transit plan sucks and it's pretty effective at doing that.

Not really. What it does is highlight how clueless some of Ford's opponents are (or, as gweed says, if they're not clueless, then they're blatantly misleading clueless people). There's sensible arguments to be made against Ford's plan, for sure, but "Web of streetcars! Awesome for all these fictitious reasons!" isn't one of them.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I'm with you - I don't know why they didn't compare the two funded plans (Two Subways in Scarborough versus Four Transit City), as I think the same point would be made, if maybe with a little less impact.

I do sort of admire this kind of simple, to-the-point messaging, though.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Not really. What it does is highlight how clueless some of Ford's opponents are (or, as gweed says, if they're not clueless, then they're blatantly misleading clueless people). There's sensible arguments to be made against Ford's plan, for sure, but "Web of streetcars! Awesome for all these fictitious reasons!" isn't one of them.

But the media's going to gobble it up, display the graphic across all their newscasts and never question any of the particulars. The graphic says that Ford's plan costs more and delivers less. Which is true enough when it comes to the quality of transit reporting we get from our major outlets.

 

[gweed123]

But the media's going to gobble it up, display the graphic across all their newscasts and never question any of the particulars.

...And that is why people vote Republican.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I think it's a sad reality but we do need more populism from the left.

 

[gweed123]

I think it's a sad reality but we do need more populism from the left.

We need more "I call bullshit" from the left directed on those towards the right. Countering BS with more BS won't get anything accomplished. All it does is create uninformed lemmings on both sides.

What the left needs to do is put the facts out there in a clear, concise form (I think this has been Obama's biggest failure btw), and let the public decide for themselves. If there's one thing the right is really good at, it's finding their message and sticking to it (ex: "we need to stop the gravy train"). Keep hammering the facts home, and eventually they will sink in.