Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Thunderstorm
30°/16°		 It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
27°/19°		 It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
30°/16°

31 Comments

news

Poll Position: Toronto Split on Transit Options

Survey puts the lie to Rob Ford's claim that a majority of Torontonians back his transit vision.

By Hamutal Dotan

Yesterday, Toronto City Council voted 25 to 18 to reverse Mayor Rob Ford’s plan to focus transit spending on two new subways, and instead to put the money into building at least three above-ground light rail lines in different parts of the city. Given what you have seen, or read, or heard, do you think that City Council has made the right decision or the wrong decision?

Right decision: 43.2%

Wrong decision: 42.8%

Not sure: 14%

Right decision, by area—

Toronto-East York: 52.5%

Etobicoke: 39.7%

North York: 38%

Scarborough: 32.9%

Poll taken: February 9–10, 2012
Sample size: 1,300
Margin of Error: +/-2.7%, 19 times out of 20
Methodology: Automated telephone poll
Conducted by: Stratcom


NOTES: It is unfortunate that this poll—the only recent one we have on Torontonians’ transit views—contains a major error. As per the question above, after last week’s special council meeting residents were asked whether they backed councillors’ decision to overturn Rob Ford’s transit plan. In contrast to that question, however, Ford’s transit plan does not call for two subway lines, but rather for one subway line on Sheppard and one buried LRT line on Eglinton.

On the upside, at least we know that this is the most support Rob Ford is likely to ever get for that transit plan: even when upgraded to two subway lines, it’s still a minority. The actual plan is likely to be attractive to fewer people. The mayor has promised to start a “Save Our Subways” campaign, which hopes to build enough support for subways among residents and that those residents in turn pressure the provincial government into ignorning council’s decision. Given that there was only ever one subway to begin with, and that there was never actually a costed-out plan for building it, it’s not clear that the rescue mission would do much more than delay building any transit at all. In the meantime, Ford opponents now have something to point to every time he says that a strong majority of Torontonians support his transit vision and a referrendum on subways would give him a slam-dunk win.

See also:

Poll Shows Rising Disapproval of Rob Ford

Comments

  • Karl Martin

    The major problem with this whole issue is that the average citizen who does not follow the news closely is being told (by the Fords) that his is a battle between subways vs. streetcars, whereas the truth is that it’s a battle between Ford’s unfunded plan to build a subway + spend a fortune to bury an LRT vs. a fully funded plan to bring LRT to far reaches of the city that are currently under-served.

    • Anonymous

      Even if someone follows the news closely, it’s getting increasingly harder to understand what’s on the table. When the media asks in a poll “do you want subways or streetcars” it guides people into thinking that these are the two options.

  • http://twitter.com/natekelly Nathan Kelly

    Do these polls ever poll people who, you know, don’t have a landline?

    • John Willis

      Yes, we do call cellphones as well, increases reliability of results significantly. especially in Toronto now, where younger people are more likely to disagree and disapprove of Ford’s policies/leadership, it is critical to accurate polling. Ask this q of all pollster please. (John Willis, Stratcom Director of Research)

    • Anonymous

      Yep, I got to do this poll – I’m a cell only guy myself, no land line… I was surprised too!

  • Anonymous

    Not only is the poll wrong about subways, it makes it seem the Eglinton LRT is no longer buried at all, contains no information about cost and is basically a steaming pile of worthless garbage. What it should have said is:

    Yesterday, Toronto City Council voted 25 to 18 to reverse Mayor Rob Ford’s plan to focus transit spending solely on burying the entire Eglinton LRT, and to instead bury the Eglington LRT only along the built-up part of Eglinton (between Jane and Laird) and to use the money saved to build above-ground light rail lines on both the suburban eastern part of Eglinton in Scarborough and along Finch in suburban North York. The unfinished Sheppard subway extension, which remains completely unfunded, is now to be studied by a panel to determine the best way of extending service along this route in the future. Given what you have seen, or read, or heard, do you think that City Council has made the right decision or the wrong decision?

    • Anonymous

      I’m afraid the vast majority of respondants wouldn’t make it past the first comma. Think Rob Ford speak:

      Do you want to pay billions in more taxes so we can build subways where they’re not needed?

  • Anonymous

    Agree. That’s one of the most poorly worded surveys I’ve ever seen (I think the Québec separation referendums may have been more clear) and the article is spot on that even with twice as many subways than what is actually in his plan, Ford’s support is split with the rest of council.

  • Anonymous

    Someone needs to start a new campaign – SAVE OUR MOSTLY UNDERGROUND LRT!

    • Anonymous

      Again, you must think, and speak like Rob Ford (mostly):

      SAVE PUBLIC TRANSIT

      SAVE OUR TTC

      WHY DOES ROB FORD HATE TRANSIT?

  • Franklin

    @ Nathan Kelly. All professional research organizations now include cell phone numbers in their phone survey samples. While the numbers are not easily available, the exchanges are (first three numbers). They then generate the rest of the numbers randomly.

  • Anonymous

    Another quasi-error is that it suggests Ford can pay for Sheppard and Eglinton, when in fact only Eglinton is paid for under his plan. Sheppard is highly theoretical.

    • Anonymous

      Actually, it’s worse than that. We can’t say that Eglinton is fully paid under the Ford plan.

      I haven’t seen many people making this point, but I think it’s pretty important. Under the Ford plan, the province was giving the city $8.4B bury Eglinton from Black Creek to Kennedy. But…

      There is yet no Environmental Assessment for burying Eglinton from Laird to Kennedy, including burying it under the Don. We have reports of engineers being at a loss as to how they were going to put the Crosstown under the Don, so we have to imagine it will be incredibly expensive.

      In short, the province was going to give a MAX of $8.4B to bury Eglinton, and we are only guessing that it would actually pay to fully bury it. I don’t know why we assume so much, since the engineers haven’t actually figured out how to do it yet. Tunnelling notoriously produces cost overruns (c.f. Boston’s Big Dig). It is entirely possible that the Ford proposal could go over budget by an order of several magnitudes, with the city being on the hook for these costs.

  • Anonymous

    From the article: “On the upside, at least we know that (42.8%) is the most support Rob Ford is likely to ever get for that transit plan: even when upgraded to two subway lines, it’s still a minority.”

    This may be dangerously wishful thinking. Note that 14% remain undecided. These are exactly the people Ford is targeting with this ridiculous SOS campaign.

    And sadly, as pointed out by others, many Torontonians lack the time or the will to educate themselves enough to see through Ford’s bogus “subway” claim.

    • Anonymous

      By failing to communicate with those constituents using language and concepts they can understand, the “downtown latte-sipping elites” are playing right into Ford’s hands.

      Seen in this light, it’s hypocritical to accuse the other side of being willfully stupid.

      Rocket science this ain’t.

  • John Willis

    The Sheppard subway is one subway. and what is the Scarborough LRT being replaced with when it reaches the end of its useful life? Riiiiiight – subway technology. That’s number two. – john Willis, Stratcom Director of Research

    • Anonymous

      If that’s what you meant, then Rob Ford’s transit plan as described in the poll question doesn’t include the Eglinton LRT. Given that much of last week’s transit debate was focused on the plan for that particular line—whether to bury it almost enitrely or not—and that the spending decision in question is driven by whether the Eglinton LRT is buried, that’s just confusing matters in a different way. Rob Ford’s plan calls for directing transit spending, in the first place, to a buried Eglinton LRT.

    • junctionist

      The Scarborough RT is being replaced with LRT technology under Rob Ford’s plan, but as part of the subway-style LRT line that he envisions along Eglinton. The actual Scarborough RT replacement will be LRT vehicles running along the current Scarborough RT’s corridor that’s mostly above ground. That’s the plan regardless of whether Transit City or Ford’s plan is implemented.

      Is it fair to shape the question as if the full Sheppard subway to Scarborough City Centre is probable? In my opinion, no. No reasonable evidence has yet presented for it. The Ford plan right now hinges on a fully grade-separated Eglinton LRT. Lastly, I wonder what the former city of York thinks about the issue, which is missing in the results above.

    • Anonymous

      Um, both plans would replace the Scarborough RT vehicles with LRT vehicles using the same elevated guideway and stations as exist today. No one ever proposed burying the SRT – that’s insane. The LRT vehicle that reaches Kennedy, whether it arrives there via surface or tunnel, would simply climb up to the guideway and continue on its way. How could you miss this?

  • Anonymous

    The rider of the now-cancelled, all-underground Crosstown would have entered an underground station, boarded an underground train, and proceeded below street level completely separated from traffic between stops separated 800m or so apart, before leaving the train at an underground station and proceeding back to the surface. In other words, a riding experience completely indistinguishable from a subway.

    Is that technically a subway or not? Persuade me that anybody needs to care.

    • Anonymous

      As a faux subway, it raises a host of cost-benefit issues. Added costs include: construction (obviously), accessibility and maintenance issues. Other issues include crime, policing, accidents, fires and medical emergencies.

      Let’s face it, the only ones who would (theoretically) benefit from this demented scheme aren’t transit users, and certainly aren’t taxpayers.

      It would only benefit car drivers (eventually, after years of disruptions. oh wait — new road taxes… never mind), construction companies and real estate developers.

      Dollars to donuts, it is the latter Rob Ford & Co. are so desperately pandering to.

      • Anonymous

        Not clear to me that “construction (obviously), accessibility and maintenance issues. Other issues include crime, policing, accidents, fires and medical emergencies” would be significantly different between the underground Crosstown and a “true” subway. Between the underground Crosstown and a surface LRT, sure. But in that case, insisting that it is technically not a subway actually muddies the waters.

        • Testu

          How about this difference: It doesn’t use subway trains.

          Whether above or below ground the Eglinton line uses LRT, which are a different size and rail technology from subways. This means we can’t use our existing subway infrastructure (Trains, hole borers, etc.) on this line. This is not a semantic difference. It means spending a lot of money to bury something not explicitly designed to be buried.

          From the rider’s perspective, no not much of a difference.

          • Anonymous

            Sure, there are all sorts of subways. Montreal’s doesn’t even use track – it rides on rubber tires. And if you really pushed it, sure, most people think of the Boston Green Line as a subway when it is really an LRT running in a mix of tunnel and surface medians. But there is still a difference here. Subway means big trains, fast. LRT means smaller trains, speeds not as fast. There is no reason to lie to people – call a spade a spade. Ford wants public transit off the roads so that drivers have a clear route – the rest is just spin.

          • Anonymous

            Why are “subways” intrinsically faster than LRT?

          • Testu

            I think that comes from people reading the average speed of the line and forgetting that it takes into account more frequent stops and stops for traffic lights rather than the top speed of the vehicle itself.

            With a ROW that does not intersect any streets LRT can travel just as fast as a subway.

            Of course that’s the argument behind a lot of the subway or bust comments. But given the choice between a slightly faster “subway” line completed sometime after I retire or a couple of LRTs that I can use to get around now(ish). I’ll go with the LRTs.

          • Anonymous

            “not explicitly designed to be buried” … if this is bad, why are we still proposing to bury 13 km worth of it?

            If you call the underground Crosstown a subway, Toronto would be far from the only city in the world with different rolling stock on different subway lines (e.g. Paris, London). My understanding is that the Crosstown would be built to standard gauge, so you could argue that this is an improvement.

          • Testu

            We’re burying those 13KM because if we didn’t it would have a major impact on the vehicle traffic on Eglinton, it would remove a minimum of two lanes. But I’m pretty sure you already know that.

            And yes, it would be better to use a standard gauge wherever possible to help reduce replacement costs and improve equipment availability. It would be even better to use the same vehicle type wherever practical so that we could use our existing maintenance facilities and infrastructure for everything in that class of transit.

            I suppose my main argument about the subway semantics is that we would be using a vehicle that was designed for open air surface transit and trying to stuff it in a tunnel (exclusively). To continue the point (poorly), despite the number of places the CN/GO trains run below grade we don’t call them subways either.

  • Anonymous

    Leading question is leading.

  • Anonymous

    In the spirit of bet-the-farm gambling which has siezed subway profligates, they have now floated a casino as the answer to their financing woes: http://tinyurl.com/78trptv (g+m)