[pman]

It's amazing, though maybe not surprising, that some people want to take Toronto back to the failed, auto-centric 1950's vision of what a city should be. Palma's right - Spadina would have been a disaster, ditto Crosstown.

 

[mdrejhon]

It would certainly be nice to see Queen get pedestrianized from Yonge to Spadina in a similar way.

That's actually be sorta happening on King soon. Transit corridor.

It is only a trial at first. But if trial succeeds, then the corridor might later be renovated in brick or other urbanized format (Queens Quay/Union plaza style) plus and level boarding platforms (for new streetcars) at the streetcar stops.

 

[amnesiajune]

That's actually be sorta happening on King soon. Transit corridor.

Nothing is official yet. The only thing that's happening right now is a study that will recommend changes to King Street between Parliament and Dufferin.

 

[steveintoronto]

A really good article on why the Economist is wrong about Toronto's transit:
http://torontoist.com/2017/01/economist-magazine-really-doesnt-understand-toronto-transit/

I disagree, with provisos. The author of the Economist article is Madelaine Drohan, and though we never met personally, I knew her through very close friends in Editorial at the Globe and Mail, where Madelaine used to have her regular column and later contribute as a guest writer.

Torontoist author ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Parker_(Canadian_politician) ) has an agenda that he reveals very early on:

As for the rest of the article, the challenge for the reader is to figure out how much that it gets so woefully wrong is a result of trying to squeeze a series of historical arcs covering decades of complex decisions and events into one sentence each, how much is the result of bad research, and how much might be the result of someone’s partisan agenda masquerading as journalism.

Who spat in his coffee? I must admit to being biased enough to come to her defence, we used to write each other on national and international matters some two decades ago.

Madelaine Drohan is the Canada correspondent for The Economist. For the last 40 years, she has covered business and politics in Canada, Europe, Africa and Asia. In 2016, she became a senior fellow at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. In 2015-2016 she was the Prime Ministers of Canada fellow at the Public Policy Forum.

She is the author of The 9 Habits of Highly Successful Resource Economies: Lessons for Canada, a research report that she wrote in 2012 for the Canadian International Council.

Her book, Making a Killing: How and why corporations use armed force to do business, was published in 2003 by Random House of Canada and in 2004 by The Lyons Press in the United States. It won the Ottawa Book Award and was short-listed for the National Business Book of the Year Award in 2004.

When possible, she conducts journalism workshops for media in Africa and Southeast Asia, with a special focus on business and investigative journalism.

She was awarded a Reuters Fellowship at Oxford University in 1998, and the Hyman Solomon Award for Excellence in Public Policy Journalism in 2001. She was a 2004-2005 Media Fellow at the Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership and the 2004-2005 Journalist in Residence at Carleton University.

She has sat as a volunteer director on the boards of the North-South Institute, Transparency International Canada and Partnership Africa Canada, where she was also president. She lives in Ottawa.

http://www.madelainedrohan.com/ And her list of accomplishments is much greater than that. Btw, both she and Chrystia Freelander were with the Globe during that golden era. My contacts were mostly in Op Ed.

I'll detail what I take to issue with the author when I can stomach to get through his hatchet job.

Edit to Add: Here's a little background and a hint as to Parker's agenda since he raises the terms "agenda" and "partisan":

Municipal politics
In 2006, Parker was elected as the City Councillor for Toronto's Ward 26. In a field of 15 candidates, Parker prevailed by a margin of 215 votes over runner-up Mohamed Dhanani. Parker received a total of 3,369 votes which amounted to just 20% of the popular vote.[3] Parker has received low grades on environmental issues. In 2008, the Toronto Environmental Alliance issued Parker an "F" grade for what they perceived to be an egregious voting record in 2007-2008.[4] While he is widely considered to be a right-wing councillor, Parker has received poor performance grades from the editorial boards of traditionally conservative newspapers in Ontario. The National Post and Toronto Sun gave Parker "C" grades in "report cards" these outlets issued for Toronto City Councillors in 2007 and 2010 respectively.[5][6] November 21, 2011, the Toronto Sun scored Councillor Parker an "A+".[7] In November 18, 2012, Toronto Taxpayer Coalition report card gave a rating of "B"[8]

In 2010, Parker was re-elected in Ward 26. He tallied the most votes in a three way race between previous contender Dhanani and newcomer Jon Burnside. The Toronto Sun supported Parker giving him the recommendation as "a hard-wired East Yorker, who brings a conservative ethic and is not easily panicked."[9] He was selected to be Deputy Speaker in December 2010.[10]

On October 27, 2014 Parker was defeated by Jon Burnside during the 2014 municipal elections and was the only incumbent defeated in the 2014 elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Parker_(Canadian_politician)

Glass houses, throwing stones...

 

[salsa]

Steve, that Economist article was a shoddy partisan puff piece that couldn't even get some of the most basic facts right. But hey, you have a personal connection with the author so it's all good.

I'll detail what I take to issue with the author when I can stomach to get through his hatchet job.

I challenge you to rebut the Huffington Post too.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'd say someone with experience in municipal politics during the contentious period would have a better handle on the issue than someone whose main area of expertise is on anything but transit and transit politics - and the multitude of errors in the Economist piece only confirmed that.

His plan, dubbed SmartTrack, calls for building a new light-rail line (modelled on London’s Crossrail) and adding six stations to existing commuter rail lines.

ST is "light rail" modeled on Crossrail? Really? It is painful.

Finally, there is the role of the federal government, whose offers of money tempt cities to embark on silly projects. Critics point to federal backing for a proposed 6km subway extension that will cost C$3.2bn and have just one station.

Anyone who can say that with a straight face deserves a special spanking. Who are the critics that had such a perspective on this particular project, the brainchild of which is conveniently not mentioned?

AoD

 

[salsa]

ST is "light rail" modeled on Crossrail? Really? It is painful.

Fun fact: Crossrail service levels will be 24 trains an hour in the core. It's like a subway running as part of a commuter rail network. It's amazing that SmartTrack can be spoken of being anything close to Crossrail, but BS like this is par for the course for John Tory.

 

[steveintoronto]

Steve, that Economist article was a shoddy partisan puff piece that couldn't even get some of the most basic facts right. But hey, you have a personal connection with the author so it's all good.

I challenge you to rebut the Huffington Post too.

Just reading it now:

It may look like an editorial about Toronto's inadequate public transit infrastructure. But if you were to make it to the last paragraph, you will discover the story is about Mayor John Tory's "modest ambition" of a second term to see his SmartTrack and toll plans come to life.

While the current issue of The Economist magazine is full of praise, it contains many errors about Mr. Tory's transit plans. "Toronto's mayor tries to improve transport" reads the headline. However, soon the editorial morphs into an advertorial for Mr. Tory's bid for a second term.

And John Parker attacks it from the other direction:

...and how much might be the result of someone’s partisan agenda masquerading as journalism.

Some attributions Drohan makes are incorrect, as per "light rail" and Crossrail services are complements to the Overground, RER but not "light rail".

So is this article pro or anti Tory in the estimation of the critics?

And are the Feds deeply involved or not?

Ontario, Ottawa at odds over funding for Scarborough subway
[...]
The federal government is rejecting calls to classify a proposed subway extension in Toronto’s east end as a national infrastructure project, a decision that Ontario says will squeeze out other important spending on the province’s wish list.

As originally envisioned, a 6.4-kilometre extension of the city’s main east-west subway line into Scarborough would be constructed. It would run from Kennedy station to the Scarborough City Centre and then on to Sheppard, where it would connect with a future light-rail line promised by the province. However, the subway project has long been a source of controversy and its future shape has yet to be resolved.

The $660-million Ottawa has pledged toward the $3.3-billion extension is by far the largest single federal commitment under the New Building Canada Fund, which was first announced in the March, 2013, federal budget. [...]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nding-for-scarborough-subway/article24972350/

So where exactly do the Feds stand on this now? Do they have input on this or not?

Fun fact: Crossrail service levels will be 24 trains an hour in the core. It's like a subway running as part of a commuter rail network. It's amazing that SmartTrack can be spoken of being anything close to Crossrail, but BS like this is par for the course for John Tory.

Well if it's "like a subway" then that's light rail. In the event, like RER, Crossrail is heavy rail, albeit in British usage, that infers mixed freight.

Seems some are taking Drohan to task from many angles because she has the audacity to write about what a poor state Toronto's transit infrastructure is in, and Tory's part of it.

I see, Salsa, you do take Tory to task for this: "but BS like this is par for the course for John Tory".

I agree. Drohan got the gist right, but since she had the audacity to write about Toronto's troubled transit file, she's being attacked from all sides for "not getting the facts right".

Edit to Add: To confuse the issue even further, the term "Light Rail" is far from being clearly defined:

ST is "light rail" modeled on Crossrail? Really? It is painful.

Light rail, light rail transit (LRT) or fast tram is urban public transport using rolling stock similar to a tramway, but operating at a higher capacity, and often on an exclusive right-of-way.

There is no standard definition, but in the United States, where the terminology was devised in the 1970s (from the engineering term light railway), light rail operates primarily along exclusive rights-of-way and uses either individual tramcars or multiple units coupled to form a train.[1][2][3][4][5]

A few light rail networks tend to have characteristics closer to rapid transit or even commuter rail; some of these heavier rapid transit-like systems are referred to as light metros. Other light rail networks are tram-like in nature and partially operate on streets.
[...]
However, some diesel-powered transit is designated light rail, such as the O-Train Trillium Line in Ottawa, Canada, the River Line in New Jersey, United States, and the Sprinter in California, United States, which use diesel multiple unit (DMU) cars.

Light rail is similar to the British English term light railway, long used to distinguish railway operations carried out under a less rigorous set of regulation using lighter equipment at lower speeds from mainline railways. Light rail is a generic international English phrase for these types of rail systems, which means more or less the same thing throughout the Anglosphere.

The use of the generic term light rail avoids some serious incompatibilities between British and American English. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail

Over to you folks...careful you don't trip over yourselves at the book burning...

 

[mdrejhon]

CrossRail is only something we can dream about for now, till the underground commuter tunnel (mentioned in "Metrolinx 2031" documents) becomes viable either under Union or under Queen. In the macro picture, I'd like to see whatever beast runs inside the GO corridor, eventually become viable for further upgrades needed to reach 5 minute headway allday capabilities for core sections of lines (e.g. UPX+RER merged), with good indoor connections to subways and LRTs at multiple points. Things like Crosstown connections and the design of the Unilever/DRL interchange will make a big difference.

If one wants to nitpick, 'light' may refer to Euro trains (or even FRA Alternate Compliance) and metro type trains, rather than tram type vehicles (LRVs).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Just reading it now:
Some attributions Drohan makes are incorrect, as per "light rail" and Crossrail services are complements to the Overground, RER but not "light rail".

So is this article pro or anti Tory in the estimation of the critics?

The misattribution points to writing on soundbite, instead of actually understanding what was being offered and how it changed overtime. And of course the article is pro-Tory - he was being portrayed by the brave knight slaying the status quo and bringing home the golden chalice while laying the blame on everyone else.

And are the Feds deeply involved or not?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nding-for-scarborough-subway/article24972350/
So where exactly do the Feds stand on this now?

They are about as deeply involved as this suggest:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...on-on-toronto-transit-debate/article27796257/

“Local governments know their communities better than the federal government,” he said. “They have the ability to make those decisions because they’re close to people. They do the consultation with the communities, they do all the planning related to the projects, they go through the environmental studies and community impact studies that all have to happen. So I think they’re better positioned in order to make those decisions.”

However, it remains to be seen what that means for city politicians who decide to change projects already in the pipeline – a key issue for Toronto as it debates and re-debates transit. Asked whether federal funding, once approved, would be tied to a specific project, Mr. Sohi said he couldn’t comment on hypotheticals. “We would have to judge [on a case-by-case] basis,” he said.

Clearly a hands-off approach, unless there is a change that may offend their sensibilities. Wheres the Economist article cleverly transposed the federal role with what is implied to be an inferior plan - check the language used again:

Critics point to federal backing for a proposed 6km subway extension that will cost C$3.2bn and have just one station.

So are the critics complaining about federal backing of the plan, or the plan itself for a costly extension of implied limited utility? It reads like the latter but laying the blame on the Feds for that (as already set up in the previous sentence to my quote).

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If one wants to nitpick, 'light' may refer to Euro trains (or even FRA Alternate Compliance) and metro type trains, rather than tram type vehicles (LRVs).

I highly doubt someone who got that much wrong will somehow go micro on having "light" referring train classification.

Well if it's "like a subway" then that's light rail. In the event, like RER, Crossrail is heavy rail, albeit in British usage, that infers mixed freight.

As currently proposed, ST/RER is NOT light rail (and I wasn't even trying to nail her for suggesting it as LRT which the project never was in the first place). Hasn't been for awhile. Which brings us back to the point of the value of someone on the ground who knows what they're talking about.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

If one wants to nitpick, 'light' may refer to Euro trains (or even FRA Alternate Compliance) and metro type trains, rather than tram type vehicles (LRVs).

Indeed. But these are upset Torontonians looking to nit-pick.

They are about as deeply involved as this suggest:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...on-on-toronto-transit-debate/article27796257/

That's over a year old, I could have posted many other references, but chose the latest I could find. Where does it stand *now*? Are the Feds involved or not? (And I'd advise a carefully researched answer on that, the latest words from Morneau are 'maybe'...but (gist) 'money is very tight'.)

A better question might be, and this also pertains to QP: Is that allocated to be disbursed yet?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Indeed. But these are upset Torontonians looking to nit-pick.

I should remind you of your postings on Don Mouth for that, unfair as it may.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

And of course the article is pro-Tory - he was being portrayed by the brave knight slaying the status quo and bringing home the golden chalice while laying the blame on everyone else.

Here's the final paragraph:

Mr Tory cannot solve these problems himself. His ambition is more modest: a second term as mayor starting next year that would allow him to see through SmartTrack and his proposed road toll. That will not solve Toronto’s transport problems, but it might persuade ex-Torontonians to give their city a second chance.

 

[steveintoronto]

I should remind you of your postings on Don Mouth for that

I'm sorry? Is accusing Torontonians as being "nitpickers" a reason to bar me?

The Economist itself if running many comments on the story, and as in this forum, it's aimed from all sides, but well worth a read:
http://www.economist.com/node/21714403/comments#comments