Canadian Transit Thread II

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

PP has stated specific opposition to the Quebec LRT so I doubt that one is getting federal funding.

Things like Toronto’s new subway trains will happen regardless of government.

It's all culture war. The Liberals refuse to fund bridges and highways. The Conservatives refuse to fund transit. A strong media would be able to call this out for what it is, two ideologues fighting a culture war when Canadians want both funded

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You must be easily impressed by studies.

Hipster is right. They acted like they were going to prioritize the project. They did nothing for years. Then hired David Collenette to take more time to do a business case for what was obvious. Instead of just using Metrolinx or having MTO do it. And then a year before the 2018 election they spent $15M on engineering studies. These are not serious efforts to get shovels in the ground. They are delay tactics to convince the easily duped that something is being worked on. And they only commissioned those studies after an outcry from SWO because people were expecting something more substantial than a very basic business case.

I guess I am.

But the full story differs from the way things seemed on the surface. The technical side of the business case was very much separate from the public Collenette flying circus. And for "preliminary" work it went way beyond what's normally done. In-depth follow-up study was warranted, but that never happened after the provincial election.

Yeah the politics raged hard, and it was all probably meant to get the pot stirring on the real prize of Toronto-Montreal HSR where I think the case is very strong. And it bothers me that formerly publicly available documents are now hard to find... they're probably still "live" somewhere, but not all that easy to locate.

Fluffing off this particular piece of work is easy to do, but misguided in my opinion.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

The Liberals refuse to fund bridges and highways. The Conservatives refuse to fund transit.

I think that used to be the case, but the Ontario conservative government has invested a lot of money in transit, even stuff that was not planned or prioritized before being elected. Highway and bridge funding always seems to be there, perhaps differently marketed based on who is in power.

But the politics around it all often smells "off"

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

It's all culture war. The Liberals refuse to fund bridges and highways. The Conservatives refuse to fund transit. A strong media would be able to call this out for what it is, two ideologues fighting a culture war when Canadians want both funded

I wish we could stop doing this. It's not "all culture war" when one side is doing something based on tangible scientific-evidence based reasons and another side is doing it based on tradition, feelings, preference etc. Encouraging automobile use which is a big component of GHG emissions worsens climate change. It also cost significantly more money to build infrastructure for cars than transit to transport an equivalent number of people. And it also if negatively affects the quality of life for people in cities to be surrounded by the danger, noise, and pollution of cars. These are not culture war issues; they're simply issues pertaining to the function of our cities, the cost of our infrastructure, and the well-being of the environment.

We really need to stop with the whole of "one side says X, one side says Y, so it's all even" as if there's no actual facts involved. And no, public preference does not qualify as objective fact. The public also wants clean air, a stable climate, and fiscal responsibility which are in conflict with perpetuating car dominance. So politicians can't accomplish both. And in a representative democracy it's up to representatives to make the best judgment call. One can argue that the transit plans could be more effective or that they're not using the best strategy, but not having the best strategy doesn't make one an ideologue.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

I think that used to be the case, but the Ontario conservative government has invested a lot of money in transit, even stuff that was not planned or prioritized before being elected. Highway and bridge funding always seems to be there, perhaps differently marketed based on who is in power.

But the politics around it all often smells "off"

The Ontario Progressive Conservative party clearly is not the federal Conservative party. Well, at least it should be clear given how often they're at odds.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I wish we could stop doing this. It's not "all culture war" when one side is doing something based on tangible scientific-evidence based reasons and another side is doing it based on tradition, feelings, preference etc. Encouraging automobile use which is a big component of GHG emissions worsens climate change. It also cost significantly more money to build infrastructure for cars than transit to transport an equivalent number of people. And it also if negatively affects the quality of life for people in cities to be surrounded by the danger, noise, and pollution of cars. These are not culture war issues; they're simply issues pertaining to the function of our cities, the cost of our infrastructure, and the well-being of the environment.

We really need to stop with the whole of "one side says X, one side says Y, so it's all even" as if there's no actual facts involved. And no, public preference does not qualify as objective fact. The public also wants clean air, a stable climate, and fiscal responsibility which are in conflict with perpetuating car dominance. So politicians can't accomplish both. And in a representative democracy it's up to representatives to make the best judgment call. One can argue that the transit plans could be more effective or that they're not using the best strategy, but not having the best strategy doesn't make one an ideologue.

The public also wants cheap ground based housing and to have the freedom of movement a car allows. You are of course right there are sacrifices from this but we are a democracy and people aren't going to willingly move into commie block apartments, huddle around a solar powered heater and shcelp their groceries back on their e-bike. I say all this as someone who has more or less (minus solar powered) lived the above experience and actually prefer it but it's just not happening politically in this country.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The public also wants cheap ground based housing and to have the freedom of movement a car allows. You are of course right there are sacrifices from this but we are a democracy and people aren't going to willingly move into commie block apartments, huddle around a solar powered heater and shcelp their groceries back on their e-bike. I say all this as someone who has more or less (minus solar powered) lived the above experience and actually prefer it but it's just not happening politically in this country.

"The public" also wants cheap SFH, the Greenbelt, low density, short commutes, low property taxes, and top notch services.

Turns out, what "the public" wants is actually contradictory, and often at odds with good policy making (see: Toronto property taxes).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The public also wants cheap ground based housing and to have the freedom of movement a car allows. You are of course right there are sacrifices from this but we are a democracy and people aren't going to willingly move into commie block apartments, huddle around a solar powered heater and shcelp their groceries back on their e-bike. I say all this as someone who has more or less (minus solar powered) lived the above experience and actually prefer it but it's just not happening politically in this country.

The car doesn't inherently "allow freedom of movement" on its own any more than transit. There's no freedom of movement without the related infrastructure. Unlike say, a snowmobile, a car would be useless in basically the entire country without roads. And then it would still often be useless if you don't keep pouring money into more and more road capacity to deal with congestion. At the same time, if you build excellent transit then it provides excellent freedom of movement and does so just as well if not better since it has a much lower cost and externalities and can be used by more people including those not physically or legally able to drive.

But regardless, even if a decision were unpopular that doesn't mean it was based on a culture war. And that's my whole point. Policy decisions involve lots of trade-offs where you trade some of one thing in exchange for another. But claiming something is just two sides of a culture war falsely implies that people on both sides are taking a position because that's just their culture or taste and what they're used to rather than for actual objective policy reasons. It implies that there's objectively no advantage or disadvantage other than what someone feels comfortable with. Should I choose the blue suit or the grey suit? Who cares! Just pick the one you prefer. Meanwhile this discussion is NOT just about preference. There are real stakes, and framing it as a mutual culture war ignores that. Very misleading.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

"The public" also wants cheap SFH, the Greenbelt, low density, short commutes, low property taxes, and top notch services.

Turns out, what "the public" wants is actually contradictory, and often at odds with good policy making (see: Toronto property taxes).

I mean point taken but the broad outlines of the trade-offs neccessary are clear.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The car doesn't inherently "allow freedom of movement" on its own any more than transit. There's no freedom of movement without the related infrastructure. Unlike say, a snowmobile, a car would be useless in basically the entire country without roads. And then it would still often be useless if you don't keep pouring money into more and more road capacity to deal with congestion. At the same time, if you build excellent transit then it provides excellent freedom of movement and does so just as well if not better since it has a much lower cost and externalities and can be used by more people including those not physically or legally able to drive.

But regardless, even if a decision were unpopular that doesn't mean it was based on a culture war. And that's my whole point. Policy decisions involve lots of trade-offs where you trade some of one thing in exchange for another. But claiming something is just two sides of a culture war falsely implies that people on both sides are taking a position because that's just their culture or taste and what they're used to rather than for actual objective policy reasons. It implies that there's objectively no advantage or disadvantage other than what someone feels comfortable with. Should I choose the blue suit or the grey suit? Who cares! Just pick the one you prefer. Meanwhile this discussion is NOT just about preference. There are real stakes, and framing it as a mutual culture war ignores that. Very misleading.

I think it is a culture war. There are those whose livelhood is largely seperate from economic growth who demand we sacrifice our lifestyle at the altar of climate change and there are those who find collectivity abhorrent no matter the reason. Those are cultural choices. A lot of the climate change warriors also abhor shoe box condos, density while being in favor of unlimited immigration. At the same time they are against sprawl. In fairness a lot of them have concrete preferences for something like the built form of Paris. 3-6 story apartments surrounded by great public transit. We have a lot of municipal and state governments across North America I don't know any that have moved in any meaningful way towards that. Vancouver has an active anti-sprawl movement. The result is very high housing prices. Condo towers and a stagnant economy. Meanwhile the going all in on highways to open up virgin land to more and more SFHs is a proven winner in many cases. Many southwestern US cities have kept up building roads to access the city and allow familes to buy the housing they want. Their downtowns are desolate hulks, they are fat and unhealthy but they do get real benefits from building free and plentiful roads.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think it is a culture war. There are those whose livelhood is largely seperate from economic growth who demand we sacrifice our lifestyle at the altar of climate change and there are those who find collectivity abhorrent no matter the reason. Those are cultural choices.

That type of language is part of the problem. Lifestyles constantly change and evolve and have done so countless times throughout history. My lifestyle has changed various time even during my own lifetime. But painting any sort of change as "sacrificing your lifestyle on an alter" which implies that it's dying is not only unproductive, it's just outright wrong. Having something change about your lifestyle doesn't mean your lifestyle has died. Pretending that it has means you're not open to any sort, pragmatism, adaptation, or compromise yet all these of these things are necessary to solve most major problems. Doing something different because it helps solve an important problem isn't "killing" anything. And it should go without saying, but the dangers posed by a problem like climate change are not a cultural choice. The risks exist and pose the same threat regardless of how anyone feels about them.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

A lot of the climate change warriors also abhor shoe box condos, density while being in favor of unlimited immigration. At the same time they are against sprawl. In fairness a lot of them have concrete preferences for something like the built form of Paris. 3-6 story apartments surrounded by great public transit. We have a lot of municipal and state governments across North America I don't know any that have moved in any meaningful way towards that. Vancouver has an active anti-sprawl movement. The result is very high housing prices. Condo towers and a stagnant economy. Meanwhile the going all in on highways to open up virgin land to more and more SFHs is a proven winner in many cases. Many southwestern US cities have kept up building roads to access the city and allow familes to buy the housing they want. Their downtowns are desolate hulks, they are fat and unhealthy but they do get real benefits from building free and plentiful roads.

Being anti-sprawl doesn't cause high prices and sprawl doesn't cause low prices. Limiting supply causes high prices. But you can have dense supply just as easily as you can have sprawl. Those southern US cities would have prices just as low or lower if they had either built densely to begin with or allowed density to increase organically without putting exclusionary restrictions on infill such as with SFH zoning. If a city like say, Phoenix, had built the same number of greenfield housing units at twice the density, the prices would be just as low because there would be just as much supply. But people would have much greater mobility since everything would be closer together and they'd have a choice between modes rather than the car being the only practical option. And they would be cheaper since it would take much less infrastructure - everything from roads, to water, sewer, and power - to connect all the homes since they'd be closer together.

The only thing that makes sprawl necessary to lower prices is that it's the only release valve when new supply is demanded when there's no option for large scale infill after all the land in the existing area has been occupied by low density development. But if you build densely from the beginning and keep building densely as the city expands outward, the dense development does not constitute as "sprawl" and there's no upward pressure on prices since a shortage isn't able to develop. The only reason people benefit from all the excess car infrastructure down there now is because it's the only work around for the low density that's still enforced. In the case of Vancouver, it like many cities in NA, grew with restrictions that limit most residential land from being used for anything but low density housing and limited most infill to being highrise condos.

But yes, fixing past mistakes tends to be costlier than not making the mistake to begin with. Like the old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." But that's the fault of the mistake, not of the fix. And not fixing past mistakes ends up being even more expensive in the long term (and sometimes even the short term).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The car doesn't inherently "allow freedom of movement" on its own any more than transit. There's no freedom of movement without the related infrastructure. Unlike say, a snowmobile, a car would be useless in basically the entire country without roads. And then it would still often be useless if you don't keep pouring money into more and more road capacity to deal with congestion. At the same time, if you build excellent transit then it provides excellent freedom of movement and does so just as well if not better since it has a much lower cost and externalities and can be used by more people including those not physically or legally able to drive.

But regardless, even if a decision were unpopular that doesn't mean it was based on a culture war. And that's my whole point. Policy decisions involve lots of trade-offs where you trade some of one thing in exchange for another. But claiming something is just two sides of a culture war falsely implies that people on both sides are taking a position because that's just their culture or taste and what they're used to rather than for actual objective policy reasons. It implies that there's objectively no advantage or disadvantage other than what someone feels comfortable with. Should I choose the blue suit or the grey suit? Who cares! Just pick the one you prefer. Meanwhile this discussion is NOT just about preference. There are real stakes, and framing it as a mutual culture war ignores that. Very misleading.

Yes, you have to be nuts not to appreciate the glory of transit-riding.

https://x.com/vanshittytvcom/status/1821797359267016980

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, you have to be nuts not to appreciate the glory of transit-riding.

https://x.com/vanshittytvcom/status/1821797359267016980

And automobile accidents are a leading cause of death and injury and an indirect cause of many other issues in car-oriented regions. But sure, let's ignore most of the facts and draw conclusions from cherry-picked anecdotes.

My god resurrecting a 5-week dormant thread for such non-sense...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

And automobile accidents are a leading cause of death and injury and an indirect cause of many other issues in car-oriented regions. But sure, let's ignore most of the facts and draw conclusions from cherry-picked anecdotes.

My god resurrecting a 5-week dormant thread for such non-sense...

Resurrecting it because national news media was outlining how major cities will soon have their transit begging bowl out for transit yet again. If you want to ride the crack cruiser then pay for it.

Broke and broken: Canada’s public transit in critical funding state, report says
By Mia Rabson The Canadian Press
Posted August 16, 2024 12:36 pm

A new analysis warns that Canada’s major cities are struggling to keep their transit systems running, and says public transit is heading for a “downward spiral” unless major new streams of operating revenue open up.


In a report published in late May, Leading Mobility Canada said the $120-billion in expansions planned for those transit systems won’t help cities that are struggling to keep the buses and trains running at current levels.

David Cooper, the principal at Leading Mobility and the study’s co-author, said the majority of transit is funded through passenger fares and property taxes, and cities have very limited options for other sources of revenue.

The federal government is allocating billions to expand transit.

“It’s great we’re getting these investments, but you actually can’t materialize the benefits of these investments if the cities actually can’t afford to run it,” he said...

....Calgary’s shortfall was $33 million in 2023, the same year Toronto reported a $366-million gap. Montreal anticipates its budget shortfall will exceed $560 million in 2025 and grow to $700 million by 2028.

Halifax expects it will be up to $22 million short in 2026 — more than 15 per cent of its total transit budget — while Vancouver warns of a structural deficit of $600 million by the same year.

All of them say the planned expansions, such as new light rail lines in Ottawa, bus rapid transit in Halifax and subway expansions in Toronto, will incur operating costs well above what they can afford.

Vancouver estimated bus and light rail expansions will cost $1.2 billion extra. Calgary said in 10 years its operating budget will be $127 million higher.

Edmonton says by 2033 its budget deficit will grow to $174 million a year, while Winnipeg thinks its expansion plans will add $37 million in annual costs....

https://globalnews.ca/news/10702607/...ing-shortfall/

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Resurrecting it because national news media was outlining how major cities will soon have their transit begging bowl out for transit yet again. If you want to ride the crack cruiser then pay for it.

Broke and broken: Canada’s public transit in critical funding state, report says
By Mia Rabson The Canadian Press
Posted August 16, 2024 12:36 pm

A new analysis warns that Canada’s major cities are struggling to keep their transit systems running, and says public transit is heading for a “downward spiral” unless major new streams of operating revenue open up.


In a report published in late May, Leading Mobility Canada said the $120-billion in expansions planned for those transit systems won’t help cities that are struggling to keep the buses and trains running at current levels.

David Cooper, the principal at Leading Mobility and the study’s co-author, said the majority of transit is funded through passenger fares and property taxes, and cities have very limited options for other sources of revenue.

The federal government is allocating billions to expand transit.

“It’s great we’re getting these investments, but you actually can’t materialize the benefits of these investments if the cities actually can’t afford to run it,” he said...

....Calgary’s shortfall was $33 million in 2023, the same year Toronto reported a $366-million gap. Montreal anticipates its budget shortfall will exceed $560 million in 2025 and grow to $700 million by 2028.

Halifax expects it will be up to $22 million short in 2026 — more than 15 per cent of its total transit budget — while Vancouver warns of a structural deficit of $600 million by the same year.

All of them say the planned expansions, such as new light rail lines in Ottawa, bus rapid transit in Halifax and subway expansions in Toronto, will incur operating costs well above what they can afford.

Vancouver estimated bus and light rail expansions will cost $1.2 billion extra. Calgary said in 10 years its operating budget will be $127 million higher.

Edmonton says by 2033 its budget deficit will grow to $174 million a year, while Winnipeg thinks its expansion plans will add $37 million in annual costs....

https://globalnews.ca/news/10702607/...ing-shortfall/

Yes. Transit users, like everyone else, pay taxes to all levels of governments. So all levels should help pay for it just like they've traditionally done with various types of car infrastructure. Especially since transit investment offers greater social benefit and overall return on investment.

And calling it the crack cruiser just makes yourself look ridiculous. I've used transit for years and can't recall ever seeing anyone using drugs. Sure people do things they shouldn't in every setting so I'm sure it happens. But there are entire sets of laws and police equipment like breathalyzers to catch drug use in cars because it's so lethal - to the user and everyone else. And that's the problem with all of this. When something bad happens with a motorist, people blame the direct cause, while when it happens on transit they blame transit. People hear about a car accident caused by drinking, texting, etc. and everyone says you shouldn't do those things because it's irresponsible and dangerous. They don't blame the whole concept of cars. Yet they see something bad on transit and instead of saying that it's bad to do that specific behaviour, they blame transit. On transit they say, "Jeez that's really sketchy, I wish I was in a car" But with someone acting poorly in another car, they just say that person doesn't belong on the road. They never say, "With people like that on the road, I sure wish I was on a bus where I'd have much more crash protection. It's just people justifying their pre-existing biases.

The correct response would be to condemn bad, dangerous, and anti-social behaviour wherever it happens to occur. If it's on a transit vehicle, condemn the person and their actions and perhaps call for better enforcement just as you would for bad behaviour of motorists.