[nfitz]

I'm not in favour of Ford's plan (personally I think Metrolinx is going to find the best middle ground), but comparing it outright to a full TC is a lie, and it should be treated as such.

The report seems highly comprehensive, and breaks down quite clearly what is funded and unfunded.

And lies? Almost everything that comes out of Ford's mouth - at least during the election - was a lie. It seems a very effective strategy. Though I wouldn't call this a lie ... that a huge overstatement.

 

[nfitz]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...bina-transit-reports-debunked/article1858803/

What a pathetic debunk attempt by the Globe and Mail.

Transit city isn’t real, so we can’t say its better than the Rob Ford plan. It might be, but we can’t say it is, so we shouldn’t assume that it is.

More importantly, the Globe is just wrong. Table 2 of the Pembina report is clearly referring to just the funded portion of the 4 Transit City lines - not the unfunded portion. This is "The Getting the Most For Our Money" section. Shame on the Globe

 

[SimonP]

Are the WWLRT, Jane LRT, Don Mills LRT, SMLRT, and sections of the ECLRT and FWLRT? Nope. But that didn't stop them from throwing them onto the map and using them for the comparison.

They're comparing one unfunded plan with another. What's the issue?

And if you read the report itself, they also compare the funded Transit City lines with Ford's plan, and Ford's plan still loses out.

 

[reaperexpress]

Good to know the Left is as purposely misleading as the Right.

EDIT: Although I don't even know if this is a Left vs Right issue. But it sure seems to becoming that. Ford = Right = Subways. Miller = Left = LRT. It's so simplistic and meaningless.

Not to mention that only left wing people ride bicycles and only right wing people drive cars.

It's ridiculous that the way you get around should somehow reflect your political preferences.

Really, we need to wait and see what Ford's compromise plan is to be able to say for sure whether he's completely against LRT or not.

Ford's transit plan revolved around brutally murdering anything related to streetcars. It's pretty safe to say he's against LRT. The question is whether he will be able to work past his portrayed sentiments and choose the option that's best for Toronto.

 

[Amy Rose]

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.

So adding 32E 32G (Jane/Weston to possibly Pearson) 36E and 36G should solve our problems, since subways are deathly needed in Scarborough from Fairview to SCC and from there to Kennedy since transfers are so obsolete

 

[k10ery]

Are the WWLRT, Jane LRT, Don Mills LRT, SMLRT, and sections of the ECLRT and FWLRT? Nope. But that didn't stop them from throwing them onto the map and using them for the comparison.

I think the comparison in the graphic is a fair one. If phase I of TC were replaced by ford's subways then the unfunded lines you mention would never get built. Building phase I gives the option to keep building later. It's a *network* with common LRVs shared carhouses, etc.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

So adding 32E 32G (Jane/Weston to possibly Pearson) 36E and 36G should solve our problems, since subways are deathly needed in Scarborough from Fairview to SCC and from there to Kennedy since transfers are so obsolete

You're allowed to think your thoughts over to see if they make sense before posting them, you know. Obsolete is not the word you're looking for. Also, much of the Sheppard line extensions Ford would build are in North York. Yes, the Danforth extension to STC is needed. Sheppard should wait but His Worship Chris Farley has made it his priority because the previous administration made it theirs. Yes, adding express/Rocket service is a necessary interim step on some arterial routes (until an infrastructure-based transit solution is viable) and a more permanent solution on other arterial routes (Morningside, for instance).

If another $6+ billion can be squeezed out of other governments in the future to build some of the more dubious portions of Transit City, another $6+ billion can be squeezed out of other governments to add to the plan on the right...like Eglinton or Finch West or Western Waterfront, or Lawrence or Kipling or Dufferin. Or a DRL or ...

Or, we could take all the billions that would be wasted on streetcar ROWs and build something else entirely. Not Rob Ford's plan. The correct answer is that neither plan in that stupid infographic should get built. Well, we should build Ford's plan...just not first.

 

[LowerBay]

The entire Transit City plan, as unveiled in 2007, is estimated at close to $20 BILLION now. That's a far cry from the original $6B that was floated around back then. Are you guys seriously mental? Spending $20 billion dollars on streetcars? You guys are twisting your hair curlers too tight.

 

[wyliepoon]

re: the TEA maps. I think the whole thing can be debunked solely because it doesn't take into account the TTC's magnificent network of bus routes feeding passengers into the subway system, the reason why most people in Toronto can still take the subway without living 6 minutes away from a subway station. If a 6-minute walk is the criteria for determining whether a transit station works or not, we should close down stations like Ellesmere and Warden right now!

Somehow I can't picture Transit City routes serving in the same capacity as a higher-order form of transit that lower-order forms like buses can feed into. The Transit City map itself is a demonstration that most Transit City routes are themselves feeders to the subway system.

 

[superman]

Rapid Transit Map Comparison

If we want to really want to compare our RAPID transit map between Transit City and the Ford election platform, this would be more appropriate:

Also, why are we comparing the full Transit City plan (which is not fully funded anyway) with a non-existant proposal from the Ford administration. We might as well compare TC to Network 2011 or the RTES while we're at it then.

If we're going to include at grade transit on our maps, we should also compare how many kilometers of BRT we can get with the money for LRT - we can really see the lines sprawl then.

 

[k10ery]

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.

Don't wory too much about the comparison; focus on the numbers.

According to the Pembina Report, 61000 people will live or work within 500m of the Ford subway lines in 2031. According to the TTC, building these lines will cost about $6.2 billion. To settle the argument, why don't we contact these 61,000 people and ask them if they are willing to pay $101,000 each for their subway (*not* per family!).

No? OK, let me knock off half for people who will bus to the lines or drive to a terminus station. Who will pay $50,000 for their share of the plan? Still no takers? Hmm.

Am I clueless or just misleading? Please let me know

(Let me see if I can help you. If only 61000 live or work in a 1 km band around these 18 km of proposed subway lines, then average density is going to be about 3300/km2 in 2031, which is lower than the average for the Toronto CMA today. How did Pembina come up with that number?)

 

[LowerBay]

If we want to really want to compare our RAPID transit map between Transit City and the Ford election platform, this would be more appropriate:

Also, why are we comparing the full Transit City plan (which is not fully funded anyway) with a non-existant proposal from the Ford administration. We might as well compare TC to Network 2011 or the RTES while we're at it then.

If we're going to include at grade transit on our maps, we should also compare how many kilometers of BRT we can get with the money for LRT - we can really see the lines sprawl then.

In your TC map, Eglinton should go all the way to Kennedy. You also forgot the Sheppard and Finch LRTs. But BRT, which can offer express service (ie. passing in the oncoming BRT lane), or leap-frog even-odd stop servicing, isn't sexy with the LRT advocates. It must have steel wheels you see. It's similar to how hardcore subway advocates don't even consider Montreal's Metro a true subway because of the rubber tires -- it's a bus in a cave.

 

[EnviroTO]

The map above does show how preferable Transit City is even from a fully grade separated point of view in terms of how many places the network reaches. However looking at the titles on the map I couldn't resist since Ford Platform didn't sound right.

Bye-bye

Hello

 

[EnviroTO]

In your TC map, Eglinton should go all the way to Kennedy.

He meant it as shown. He was trying to show a comparison of fully grade separated rapid transit... both which would be expected to perform at the same speed and have no impact from and to traffic.

 

[nfitz]

In your TC map, Eglinton should go all the way to Kennedy. You also forgot the Sheppard and Finch LRTs.

It appears to be a deliberate attempt to perpetuate the lie that LRT isn't rapid transit.

Which is pretty disingenuous when the case is being made that comparing the complete Ford rapid transit platform to the complete Transit City rapid transit platform isn't a fair comparison.