Toronto’s transit planning: No way to run a railway
marcus gee
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jan. 27, 2012 10:16PM EST
Last updated Friday, Feb. 03, 2012 9:09PM EST

Transit planning in Toronto is a colossal, humiliating failure. It is hard to imagine how any city could make a greater hash of it.

While other major cities from Taipei to Seoul to Madrid have rolled out vast networks of rapid transit, Toronto has fallen far behind. It is 34 years this week since the last extensive subway project opened: the Spadina line going north from Bloor.

One new subway, on Eglinton West, was halted in mid-construction for lack of provincial funding. A hole was dug for a tunnel, then filled right back in again. Another project, the underused five-stop Sheppard “stubway,” dead-ends at a mall. A third, the rinky-dink, outmoded Scarborough RT, runs on vehicles that don’t hook up to the subway system.

Toronto thought it had a new start with Transit City, mayor David Miller’s plan to build seven light-rail lines along busy corridors such as Finch and Sheppard. But Queen’s Park pulled back $4-billion in funding in 2010 and a newly elected Mayor Rob Ford cancelled it altogether at the end of that year. The Liberal government, fearing defeat at an imminent election, meekly acquiesced.

Now we have this staggering mess over the Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown line. The original plan was to have it travel underground through the middle and above ground at the end, where the city is less dense. Mr. Ford insisted on putting it underground all the way, adding vastly to the cost.

He has never taken that rash, unilateral decision to city council, despite clear wording in his memorandum of agreement with the province that requires the deal to be democratically approved. Now he faces a rebellion by councillors.

His critics say that it makes no sense to dig a tunnel through the wide-open spaces of eastern Eglinton to carry light-rail vehicles that were intended to travel mostly above ground. If it’s going underground, it should be a proper subway like all the other trains in Toronto that travel through tunnels. If it’s light rail, go back to the original plan and put much of it on the surface. But the mayor is digging in his heels.

Now the biggest infrastructure project in Canada is stuck in political gridlock. The mayor and the chair of the Toronto Transit Commission are butting heads. The provincial government is waiting for the city to get its act together, but refusing to take any leadership itself. The TTC, which is supposed to run the ruddy thing once it gets built, is complaining about being sidelined.

It is a clown show of the first order. Who on Earth is in charge?

A city cannot act like this and expect to build a decent transit system. Rapid transit requires long-term planning, firm, consistent leadership and huge amounts of money. Cities that do it properly come up with a plan looking decades into the future and stick to it.

Toronto? Toronto plays politics, cancels projects in midstream, draws up plans only to rip them up and delays, delays, delays. It is no way to run a railway.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/torontos-transit-planning-no-way-to-run-a-railway/article2318311/

I don't know why Metrolinx just doesn't take the ball and roll with it. I'm tired of these politicians deciding what's best for transit despite having no experience in transit planning whatsoever.

I don't know why Metrolinx just doesn't take the ball and roll with it. I'm tired of these politicians deciding what's best for transit despite having no experience in transit planning whatsoever.hahahaha Metrolinx? Hate to say it, but what do they know about public transport planning & operations, not to mention the politics behind it?

So far all they have done is assume GO Transit projects that had been planned for some decades (when they took over GO) and made a long list that collected public transit projects from all the cities in Southern Ontario ... without being sure of how they would actually build them ... and they still haven't managed to take steps to improve GO service within Toronto, as well as inconsistent planning in the suburban cities.

Metrolinx has also projected the cost of the Sheppard subway extension at 3.7 billion (compared to the TTC's 4.6 billion estimate), but they are underestimating certain things, like the need for a new subway yard to serve the extended Sheppard line (rather than expanding Wilson which is close to capacity) and underestimating other costs.

Cheers, m

Well, it's clear that somebody has to take the lead, and it shouldn't be Ford and company.

Well, it's clear that somebody has to take the lead, and it shouldn't be Ford and company.

I don't think you would be happier with Hudak being in direct control of transit in Toronto. Metrolinx answers, essentially, directly to the premier at the moment.

Anybody is better than Ford at the moment. And given that McGuinty is Premier for at least a little while, I suspect our transit plans will be solidified by the time we have an election. I'm not entirely sure Hudak would win anyway, since he's proven to be a robot who spits out the same phrases over and over. That sure didn't help him in his campaign.

I'm not entirely sure Hudak would win anyway, since he's proven to be a robot who spits out the same phrases over and over. That sure didn't help him in his campaign.

Ontario, since televised debates were introduced, has not elected a Premier who was running their first election. Both Hudak and Horwath will be much more electable next time around.

Also interesting is that we have not given 3 majorities in a row. McGuinty minority was the only way to not break those 2 rules.

Next election could be anyones including another McGuinty majority.

Anyway, if it isn't Hudak there will eventually be someone elected as Premier who is actively hostile toward big-city necessities who will have Metrolinx under their direct control for input.

Ford doesn't like transit but he is surrounded by a council which does since a majority of council relies on it to a certain extent. That limits his abilities.

A premier with suburban and rural Ontario backing him could be much worse as we saw during the 90's.

^ The problem here is that the TTC is incompetent, and as the article points out, nobody is doing anything at the moment, and neither Transit City nor Ford's even stupider Subways-only plan is much of an option. They need a plan that extends the network as appropriate to all corners of the city. Nobody has come up with such a plan. Why? Incompetency on the part of the people involved on all sides.

^ The problem here is that the TTC is incompetent, and as the article points out, nobody is doing anything at the moment, and neither Transit City nor Ford's even stupider Subways-only plan is much of an option. They need a plan that extends the network as appropriate to all corners of the city. Nobody has come up with such a plan. Why? Incompetency on the part of the people involved on all sides.methinks the better word for TTC is stubborn ... and you can add "resistant to change" as well.

The original Transit City plan did really plan for bus (rapid & frequent) and LRT lines serving all corners of the city. Some of it was a bit unclear (Waterfront West LRT), unwise (Jane LRT south of Eglinton Ave) or undetermined (Don Mills LRT to Pape station or DRL subway up to Don Mills & Eglinton).

Unfortunately, by the time the proposal was made public, it was already clear that it would not all work and that cutbacks would have to be made.

First to go was the Transit City Bus Plan. Then, most of the LRT lines were cut back to the 5-in-10 plan ... no more Jane LRT, Waterfront West LRT, Finch west from Keele only, etc. etc.

Then the issue became political and ideological ... and a few steps later, we ended up in the situation where we are today.

Cheers, m

^ I agree on everything you said there, but we're still here with a transit network wholly inappropriate for a city of this size. The TTC isn't getting the job done, you guys say Metrolinx is worse (and consider the enormousness on Ontario's deficit and the fact that any program gets caught up in political BS in short order, you may well be right), so who does that leave to do the job?

Only the private sector is left, which seems to scare the general public a lot.

^ I agree on everything you said there, but we're still here with a transit network wholly inappropriate for a city of this size. The TTC isn't getting the job done, you guys say Metrolinx is worse (and consider the enormousness on Ontario's deficit and the fact that any program gets caught up in political BS in short order, you may well be right), so who does that leave to do the job?Well, Metrolinx is slowly getting something done. A half-assed improvement to the GO network is currently underway ... and when it is done, I can only hope that, at least GO service will be a lot better than it is today.

The big challenge is getting the TTC & GO to work together ... that is the major step that needs to be taken ... and nobody seems to be ready to take that step.

Cheers, m

and now - the bully brothers want to get rid of Gary Webster
http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhallpolitics/article/1133277--ttc-s-gary-webster-faces-axe?bn=1

Some city councillors fear that Mayor Rob Ford could install an under-qualified ally in the TTC’s top job, if the mayor’s loyalists on the transit commission oust the system’s chief executive Tuesday.

It’s an open secret at City Hall that TTC chair Karen Stintz has been protecting Webster from the mayor’s office over his refusal to build a case for a subway on Sheppard Ave. E. and a completely underground Eglinton LRT.

“Gary and I knew it was a matter of time. They’ve been itching to fire him since July,” said Stintz, who has been vacationing out of town with her family.

Reached Friday afternoon, she said she was “completely unaware” that five Ford loyalists on the transit board had called a special meeting Tuesday.

This is the last thing the system needs, she said, “at a time when the TTC has been dealing with so much uncertainty.”

The chief general manager is both the main adviser to the Toronto Transit Commission and its employee, who is directed by the board to act on policy it sets.

With the TTC planning to install private citizens on its board in the next few months, replacing some city councillors on the commission, the top staff job could go to almost anyone who lines up with the mayor’s vision, said Councillor Maria Augimeri, a Ford opponent on the TTC board.

“Any toady will do for this administration. All you have to do is be willing to sacrifice your integrity,” she said.

Webster is one of the few engineers qualified to run the country’s largest transit system and has no obvious successor there. Although a new chief operating officer, Andy Byford, was recruited from Sydney, he’s been here only since November and wouldn’t necessarily be in line for the job, said Augimeri.

City councillors on the TTC board who signed a petition for the special meeting are Norm Kelly, Vince Crisanti, Frank Di Giorgio, Denzil Minnan-Wong and Cesar Palacio. They form the majority of the nine-member transit board, so it would be in their power to have Webster removed.

They wouldn’t discuss the personnel matter on Tuesday’s meeting agenda, expected to be conducted mostly behind closed doors.

“It’s a question of reviewing the overall direction of where we believe the TTC should go. It’s a situation where the kinds of disagreements that have erupted in the past shouldn’t happen. I think people need to be on the same page,” DiGiorgio told the Star.

TTC chair Karen Stintz has been out of town for a week, following last week’s council defeat of the mayor.

Although Ford might like to remove the chair he picked to head the TTC, it would take a majority of council to do that and he probably couldn’t muster the votes, say his opponents.

Firing Webster sends a clear signal to city staff who won’t fall in with the mayor’s plans, warned former TTC vice-chair Joe Mihevc.

“If they are successful, no one is safe at the city,” said the St. Paul’s councillor. “The message will go out — as it did with the TCHC — that if you don’t agree with the mayor and write twisted reports the way he wants you to, then you’re out of here. To get rid of your most loyal civil servant because he cannot in conscience recommend, from a technical point of view, a crazy subway plan is beyond the pale.”

Firing Webster before his contract ends in March 2013 could cost between $400,000 and $500,000, said Mihevc. In 2010, Webster earned $281,931.37. He has been at the TTC for 35 years and had been expected to retire by early next year.

“If the purpose is to end Gary’s contract early, they need a pretty good payout because you can’t just fire him without cause,” Stintz said.

TTC vice-chair Peter Milczyn said he wasn’t asked to sign the petition for the special meeting.

But at last week’s special city council meeting, Milczyn praised both Stintz and Webster for their professionalism and, following his remarks, took a moment to shake the TTC head’s hand in council chambers.

Webster did not return calls Friday, and Ford ducked reporters following an afternoon meeting.

why does this clown insist on finishing that stupid subway line? it was a mistake to begin with...i'd rather see an Eglinton Subway or a connection that would turn YUS into a circle line

I don't understand the reasoning behind Fords political decisions to slap up employees who are searching for a reasonable transit solution that benefits the tax payers while also not completely abandoning Fords subway vision. IMO to axe Gary for supplying the truth in his report, which was at the request of the Ford administration is ludicrous. He did his job and provided the insight an clarity to the transit plan that was presented. I applaud him for not bending to a political agenda an keeping his integrity. We need more like him, I would be disappointed to see him go.

^^ Clearly Ford and his goon squad are intent on squashing any opposition, and he refuses to acknowledge the will of City Council.

^^ Clearly Ford and his goon squad are intent on squashing any opposition, and he refuses to acknowledge the will of City Council.

Yep, that was why they sacked Webster. Unfortunately, as long as the Toronto Sun are carrying water for Ford and his fools, they will keep on with this garbage, thinking that the city is somehow behind them.

This whole situation was, at one point, somewhat amusing but now it is absolutely childish. Ford can take a good chunk of the blame but certainly not all of it.
Stinz is employing complete opportunism and she still endorces a subway along Sheppard.
Miller brought forth TC but it had plenty of faults which he refused to enven acknowledge. He though a "one size fits all" theory can be applied to all applications. He continually reinforced TC as "rapid" transit which it clearly isn't. Anyone who was against his little baby was labelled "anti-transit". TC was completely disjointed and did absolutely nothing for the downtown core and Torontonians never really embraced the idea but that was irrelevant to him, it was his way or the highway. He also raised cane when McGuinty had to scale back some of the funds alloted due to the worsening budget problems at Queen's Park..........he bitched up a storm but didn't even condifer the idea of Toronto itself having to contribute funds for the TC. He didn't have the balls to be honest with Torontonians and tell them they had to pay their fair share but instead fell back on the tried and true mantra of blaming Queen's Park. He picked a fight with the feds over not having them help subsidize the cost of the new legacy streetcar rteplacements under the federal stimulus program. Any moron knows that vehicles are not infrastructure but he could have got them to help built the actual garage for the trains did qualify for the program but alas how we he bitch at them if they did give some money for it?
There is plenty of blame to go around and it started well before Ford got on the scene it's just that he has made a bad situation worse. I believe a recent poll came out which stated {I'm going by memory} that only 30% of the people trusted Ford with transit but only 50% of people trusted council................in other words Torontonians know that neither are competent enough to deal with Toronto's transit woes. They don't trust council but trust Ford less......a sad state of affairs where no one one can claim the high moral ground.

Mods, i noticed that we got a lot of related threads around here and it's all over the place. I can help you out in reorganizing things while merging all these in one day for a day pass. ;)

Transit report card gives TTC mostly failing grades
Published on Wednesday July 18, 2012

DAVID RIDER/TORONTO STAR

A transit advocacy group is giving the TTC a rough ride in its first report card on the system’s performance.

TTCriders, formed by members of environmental, labour and community organizations, ranked the TTC’s performance over the past year.

The report card released Tuesday says:

• TTC fares cover a higher percentage of operating costs than for any other North American system. Funding must come from other sources. Grade: Derailed.

• Transit expansion and how to fund it has been the subject of serious discussions since June. Grade: On track.

• TTC accessibility for disabled riders is taking too long to implement. Grade: Delayed.

• Service levels were cut in council’s 2012 austerity budget, while fares were hiked. Grade: Derailed.

• Environmental benefits of public transit are known — reducing greenhouse gas and smog-producing emissions — but the TTC doesn’t publish reports to promote those benefits. Grade: Unknown.

[snip]


http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1228160--transit-report-card-gives-ttc-mostly-failing-grades

I don't know why Metrolinx just doesn't take the ball and roll with it. I'm tired of these politicians deciding what's best for transit despite having no experience in transit planning whatsoever.


totally agree with ya, but it s no only that but also corruption, it s incredible the budget for this company and our system is just crap,...
have u ever been in madrid, barcelona or even mexico city...the subway is by way way better...


This has to change:ohno:

I don't know abut Mexico City, but I can tell you that the only reason Madrid and Barcelona have such excellent subways was because of the MegaEuros dumped into Spain by the EU. We do not have that luxury in Toronto, and I imagine they will not have that luxury again in Barcelona and Madrid for some time....

I don't know abut Mexico City, but I can tell you that the only reason Madrid and Barcelona have such excellent subways was because of the MegaEuros dumped into Spain by the EU. We do not have that luxury in Toronto, and I imagine they will not have that luxury again in Barcelona and Madrid for some time....


You are right , however, i think TTC does not have a good administration . It receives a lot of subsidies but what do they do with this money?...how do they spend it>.?...are they maximizing the budget?...few questions to respond.

I don't know abut Mexico City, but I can tell you that the only reason Madrid and Barcelona have such excellent subways was because of the MegaEuros dumped into Spain by the EU. We do not have that luxury in Toronto, and I imagine they will not have that luxury again in Barcelona and Madrid for some time....

Madrid and Barcelona funded their own subway. What we got funds for was for the HSR, not the subways.

Also, the soil in most of Spain is supposedly perfect for builing subways, specially in Madrid (not so sure about Barcelona): soil weak enough so the drilling is cheap but hard enough to sustain construction. This is one of the reasons why Madrid metro has grown a lot.

So let me doubt that the only reason why Madrid has such excellent subway is because we got non-existant funds for it.

pd: btw, by 2015 we'll have subway to Torrejón de Ardoz, which is quite distant from Madrid city. :)

pd: btw, by 2015 we'll have subway to Torrejón de Ardoz, which is quite distant from Madrid city. :)

My map says it is about 25km from center to center.


Interestingly, VMC Station (in Toronto) is also set to open in 2016 and is roughly 24km from downtown Toronto.

I give that as an interesting coincidence, not any kind of network comparison.

I found this on Facebook and thought I just had to share it on here...
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/399376_10151012038527918_1822136883_n.jpg

I found this on Facebook and thought I just had to share it on here...
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/399376_10151012038527918_1822136883_n.jpg

Now do a map for Dallas or Houston as they're both roughly the same population as Toronto (6.5 Million). Toss in Detroit (metro population of 5.5Million) if you like. Dallas's DART is actually pretty useful for certain trips.

I think you'll find a stronger correlation to length of subway system and relative age/wealth of the city than to population size.


The real problem is Toronto had too much money while developing. We could afford to give most people a plot of land and their own personal transit vehicle; but we have significantly less wealth than Texas. If the average income in Toronto was 30% lower between the 60's and 2000 I think the city layout would have been radically different.

However, we have more wealth per capita than Spain which was forced into denser living and shared transit vehicles.

From the suburbs around Paris, Berlin, and London we know Europeans used to prefer single-detached homes and low-rise towns with their version of a white picket fence too; it just wasn't affordable to the same %age of the population.

I found this on Facebook and thought I just had to share it on here...
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/399376_10151012038527918_1822136883_n.jpg


this is a good example excepting new york.

but let s face it guys, the system in toronto is not like that good, if we compare it with a few german cities such as, berlin,munchen, hamburg,oslo norway,moscow ,even santiago de chile, we can realize that our system is very deficient ,some of those cities are not even capitals however they have a larger subway system than toronto....

I do not know i think we need to do something about it.....that ttc union is fucking our system,

I found this on Facebook and thought I just had to share it on here...
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/399376_10151012038527918_1822136883_n.jpg

hahaha this is great.

Totally unfair comparison. Many people felt that way when it was posted on Facebook anyway.

Totally unfair comparison.

I don't think it is unfair. It is, however, incomplete.

I think it is. Each of those subway systems are 50+ years older than ours, those cities have population densities far exceeding Toronto's, and their population itself is at least double that of our city.

guys. ...let s acept what it is...see the one in santiago de chile and compare......way better the one in santiago.......same population but santiago is still a 3th world city.....

Santiago has a population of 4,985,893 compared to Toronto's 2.7 million and a population density more than double that of Toronto. Our metro areas are more comparable though, with similar populations and densities, so I'll give you that. My point being, Toronto can't be compared to NY, Paris and London for several reasons. That being said, I'm not denying that Toronto needs additional subways. A Downtown Relief Line is a must, as is a proper connection to Pearson.

Chile is not a third world country.

Exactly. Chile is considered a developed country. (but it only achieved that status a year or two ago)

I found this on Facebook and thought I just had to share it on here...
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/399376_10151012038527918_1822136883_n.jpg

Here's the counter-argument (also on Facebook):

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/544430_10101289347908532_2125473360_n.jpg

I've made the argument with friends that context needs to be taken with both sets of comparisons.

In the first set Toronto is a relative late-comer with the other cities having at least a 50-year head start. I'm sure our network (and our city) would be very different had we started back in the 1910's as originally planned. Also at that time, not only were labour laws and construction methods more lax, most of the other cities had competing companies building parallel networks. Not to mention the size and geography of the other cities' networks. At this point it's proving very difficult to add to the existing system. NYC's most significant subway expansion project, the 2nd Av. subway is taking forever to build. Other far smaller projects are often shoehorned in or built to pared back designs. Paris is incrementally adding at the periphery while London aside from Olympic-related infrastructure, is growing by cannibalizing the rail network into Overground and Crossrail.

In the second set the subways systems arrived in Philadelphia (1907), Toronto (1954), Atlanta (1979) and Houston (TBD) in that order. Philadelphia's anemic subway is complemented by an extensive light rail/streetcar and commuter rail systems, much like Toronto. Houston is quickly expanding its light rail system which began in 2004 and will double in length by the time it turns 10. Meanwhile Atlanta is only now just starting theirs. The requisite political squabbling there is delaying much-needed growth.

I do have one issue with the second set's representation of Toronto. I think the scaling might be off compared to the other cities. It looks like it was simply copied from the first set.

Exactly. Chile is considered a developed country. (but it only achieved that status a year or two ago)


chile is not a developed country, just because their HDI is very high it does not mean that chile is developed like that..their gdp per capita is still low and they have a bad health care system, educational system etc...
anyway that s not the poin
chile has 7 million people with metro area, same as toronto with metro area...

ok..i m just trying to give an objective point of view but obviously some people just cant take it.

Here's the counter-argument (also on Facebook):

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/544430_10101289347908532_2125473360_n.jpg

I've made the argument with friends that context needs to be taken with both sets of comparisons.

In the first set Toronto is a relative late-comer with the other cities having at least a 50-year head start. I'm sure our network (and our city) would be very different had we started back in the 1910's as originally planned. Also at that time, not only were labour laws and construction methods more lax, most of the other cities had competing companies building parallel networks. Not to mention the size and geography of the other cities' networks. At this point it's proving very difficult to add to the existing system. NYC's most significant subway expansion project, the 2nd Av. subway is taking forever to build. Other far smaller projects are often shoehorned in or built to pared back designs. Paris is incrementally adding at the periphery while London aside from Olympic-related infrastructure, is growing by cannibalizing the rail network into Overground and Crossrail.

In the second set the subways systems arrived in Philadelphia (1907), Toronto (1954), Atlanta (1979) and Houston (TBD) in that order. Philadelphia's anemic subway is complemented by an extensive light rail/streetcar and commuter rail systems, much like Toronto. Houston is quickly expanding its light rail system which began in 2004 and will double in length by the time it turns 10. Meanwhile Atlanta is only now just starting theirs. The requisite political squabbling there is delaying much-needed growth.

I do have one issue with the second set's representation of Toronto. I think the scaling might be off compared to the other cities. It looks like it was simply copied from the first set.

Context is everything, you are right with that statement, but everything afterwards I disagree with. I've lived in Toronto and Atlanta and let me say this, Houston,Philadelphia and Atlanta are not Toronto. They are not considered world class, cosmopolitan like Toronto is. Toronto is routinely compared to the Paris',New York's,London's Chicago's,etc of the world.

I under that those cities are more dense and have older systems but why are you using those as excuses? If someone does something the right way and before you do it, shouldn't you follow suit? Or at least try to improve on their method? Toronto's subway system is a joke. The fact that it's comparable to the Marta's rail system in one of the most car dependent cities in the World is quite frankly appalling.

That in no way should be comforting or allowed. We should be planning ahead and taking lessons from the best and holding our city to a higher standard, not making excuses while citing context.

Toronto needs an extreme over haul in my opinion. We have a choice, we can keep putting on band aids then watch the thing blow up in over faces decades from now, or make real progress. Extending over used lines to reach even further and add more traffic is nice, but we should really consider a cutting edge solution.

Toronto needs an extreme over haul in my opinion. We have a choice, we can keep putting on band aids then watch the thing blow up in over faces decades from now, or make real progress.

I don't think Toronto is doing too bad at the moment. Georgetown corridor, Eglinton Avenue and Spadina Extension add up to about 40km of high capacity rapid transit currently under construction.

That doesn't count numerous other projects like Mississauga BRT, Union Station capacity upgrades, the $500M spent buying GO railway corridors, or very significant rolling stock replacements.

Of course, you don't really get to use any of that until at least 2015; and we're not exactly certain what service levels will actually be provided on Georgetown corridor (it will suit the ridership that actually appears).


Yes, another round of expansion could be used so ask your city councillor to vote in favour of raising transit capital funds both with the City of Toronto for smaller items (BRT lanes, jump-queue lanes, minor downtown LRT extensions/improvements, etc.) and at a regional level through Metrolinx for big stuff (DRL, electrified Lake Shore GO line with 15 minute all day frequencies, etc.)

I think i remember seeing somewhere that $14 billion is currently being spent on transit infrastructure in the city, not including the GTA. that was for toronto alone.

Random question about streetcars: I was taking a walk around OCADU the other day and I saw some streetcar tracks being installed on Granby (?) Street. Is this for a new route? or just one of those that are used in case of rerouting, like the ones on York Street?

I don't think Toronto is doing too bad at the moment. Georgetown corridor, Eglinton Avenue and Spadina Extension add up to about 40km of high capacity rapid transit currently under construction.

That doesn't count numerous other projects like Mississauga BRT, Union Station capacity upgrades, the $500M spent buying GO railway corridors, or very significant rolling stock replacements.

Of course, you don't really get to use any of that until at least 2015; and we're not exactly certain what service levels will actually be provided on Georgetown corridor (it will suit the ridership that actually appears).


Yes, another round of expansion could be used so ask your city councillor to vote in favour of raising transit capital funds both with the City of Toronto for smaller items (BRT lanes, jump-queue lanes, minor downtown LRT extensions/improvements, etc.) and at a regional level through Metrolinx for big stuff (DRL, electrified Lake Shore GO line with 15 minute all day frequencies, etc.)

I understand that those will help, but the subway system here is just a joke. The stations are dilapidated and inaccessible, constant delays, etc...all because of complacency. We cannot relent and I will try my best to do what I can so that these ills remedied.

The stations are dilapidated and inaccessible, constant delays, etc...all because of complacency. We cannot relent and I will try my best to do what I can so that these ills remedied.

What is a good example of a system with few delays and well maintained accessible stations? New York? Paris? London? Montreal? Don't mention any systems less than 30 years old; they simply haven't aged to the point where maintenance is $7M/km/year problem.

As I said, Toronto is doing well particularly for the resources invested.

Push for that increase in taxation and fares so TTC can do better. I've even dropped the occassional $5 bill for a single trip; do you? Why not?

What is a good example of a system with few delays and well maintained accessible stations? New York? Paris? London? Montreal? Don't mention any systems less than 30 years old; they simply haven't aged to the point where maintenance is $7M/km/year problem.

As I said, Toronto is doing well particularly for the resources invested.

Push for that increase in taxation and fares so TTC can do better. I've even dropped the occassional $5 bill for a single trip; do you? Why not?

I wouldn't mention any systems that are less than 30 years old, Toronto couldn't really relate to that, but we can take lessons and apply them in different ways.

No I haven't dropped 5 dollars for a single trip, I have a metropass.

Random question about streetcars: I was taking a walk around OCADU the other day and I saw some streetcar tracks being installed on Granby (?) Street. Is this for a new route? or just one of those that are used in case of rerouting, like the ones on York Street?

I believe you're referring to the track work along McCaul. The 502 does run along a short segment of it north of Queen to a loop. The remaining segment up to College is to allow for diversions like York and Church Streets elsewhere downtown.

Steve Munro has been following the construction project, which due to the nature of the street is being done one set of tracks at a time: http://stevemunro.ca/?p=6665

Context is everything, you are right with that statement, but everything afterwards I disagree with. I've lived in Toronto and Atlanta and let me say this, Houston,Philadelphia and Atlanta are not Toronto. They are not considered world class, cosmopolitan like Toronto is. Toronto is routinely compared to the Paris',New York's,London's Chicago's,etc of the world.


Agree. Atlanta, Philly, and Houston are hardly cities that Toronto should look to. We're doing better than the bottom of the barrel when it comes to subways so things are ok? Perhaps, we should compare ourselves to 'best in class'. Madrid?

(Scarborough LRT is an extension of the Bloor-Danforth line and Sheppard is a subway to nowhere. Toronto has 2.5 subway lines; 4 is misleading.)

(Scarborough LRT is an extension of the Bloor-Danforth line and Sheppard is a subway to nowhere. Toronto has 2.5 subway lines; 4 is misleading.)

I think one could argue that Yonge and University/Spadina are separate lines that either originate or terminate at Union Stn, since both travel in a north/south direction. The majority of passengers whose journey includes Union Stn, usually either board or exit at Union Stn.

There are exceptions of course, such as passengers attempting to get a seat by boarding a train headed south, even though they are ultimately headed north. Usually, this would include people that are far enough south (Queen or King) yet still close enough to the "other" line to justify heading in the opposite direction for a stop or two.

So, perhaps 3.5 is more accurate.

The most pathetic thing about those comparisons is that you could have used the same map from Toronto 30 years ago and it would be exactly the same less the stubway.

A better real comparison for Toronto in N.A. is Chicago, Boston, San Fransisco, Philly, Waahington, and Montreal. All are older cities with established systems and vibrant inner city areas where the cities were very substanial prior to 1950 and are world class cities as opposed to just being large and there is a big difference.

really? cause I have never heard of this "waahington" place! lol

It's right beside Baatimore.

I think one could argue that Yonge and University/Spadina are separate lines that either originate or terminate at Union Stn, since both travel in a north/south direction.

It's one continuous subway line that runs through Union Station (no subway originates/terminates at Union). I suppose the Circle Line in London is now four lines because it changes direction 4 times? You're just dressing it up so our subway system doesn't look as pitiful as it is.

Vancouver and Montreal have as much track as we do. Madrid has 4 times more track than Toronto:

Madrid 293 km
Montreal 69.2 km
Vancouver 68.7 km
Toronto 68.3 km


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

The most pathetic thing about those comparisons is that you could have used the same map from Toronto 30 years ago and it would be exactly the same less the stubway.


Agree. Some moron called Mel Lastman thought it was fine to just stop expanding it as the city grew. We've never recovered from it and now it's bursting at the seams and doesn't serve huge swaths of our city.

Btw, comparing the subway systems in Boston, Philadelphia, etc. to determine whether Toronto has an adequate one is like comparing your Lada to a Skoda to figure out if its a good car. Very few north American cities do a good job when it comes to subways.

New York, Mexico City, Vancouver, and Montreal have good ones for their size. The rest do not.

Toronto needs the Downtown Relief Line, a Queen Line, an Eglinton Line, and a rail link to the airport. That's the bare minimum. The airport link is happening, and the Eglinton Line has become LRT. I'll take it, but that's not enough. We need those other 2, and they MUST be subways.

Public transit isn't really that necessary for a major city really. Saudi Arabian cities have practically no mass transit, and are booming and prospering. The city should just replace all surface parking lots with underground garages, therefore absorbing the excess traffic and car volume created from former transit riders. Deregulate the taxi and private bus systems to offer more service to car-less people and relax zoning laws to allow more people to live closer to where they work, also provide subsidies to promote telecommuting. All at the same time you would be able to phase out and abolish the TTC entirely. Also, privatize/or lease as many roads as possible to toll road companies to allow for more efficient pricing of movement throughout the city (tolls would increase during peak travel times). Such an undertaking could probably be completed in about a decade.

If those cities are "booming and prospering" it's due to their oil money, not their splendid urban planning.

The only thing those changes would accomplish is that that people of Toronto would be paying as much (or more) as they are now and getting less mobility since they'd be supporting the profits of private companies rather than for just paying for the services they're using, and more people would need to own and operate cars,

Telecommuting sounds good, but promoting it isn't suddenly going to make most companies start allowing it, not all jobs can be done from home (only select office jobs can be) and people need to go places other than to work.

The only thing behind these type of suggestions is that some people just have a bias against anything done through government or public agencies and incorrectly believe anything private is superior. Outside this irrational doctrine, there is nothing actually supporting such policies.

Agree. Atlanta, Philly, and Houston are hardly cities that Toronto should look to. We're doing better than the bottom of the barrel when it comes to subways so things are ok? Perhaps, we should compare ourselves to 'best in class'. Madrid?

(Scarborough LRT is an extension of the Bloor-Danforth line and Sheppard is a subway to nowhere. Toronto has 2.5 subway lines; 4 is misleading.)
Personally, I'd consider the best in class to be Berlin. The U-Bahn may not be as long as the Madrid Metro, but the S-Bahn (mostly surface rapid transit) is actually longer, and Berlin actually has BOTH in the same metro area for a total route length of about 460km. That is absolutely astonishing for a metro area of that size, and more efficient than Madrid which tries to do it all through subway which is overkill.

Personally, I'd consider the best in class to be Berlin. The U-Bahn may not be as long as the Madrid Metro, but the S-Bahn (mostly surface rapid transit) is actually longer, and Berlin actually has BOTH in the same metro area for a total route length of about 460km. That is absolutely astonishing for a metro area of that size, and more efficient than Madrid which tries to do it all through subway which is overkill.

I agree that there are a number of European cities with lots more rail than Madrid relative to population, but I don't know enough about some of those European cities to use them as examples. I just did some digging though. U-Bahn is 146 km so its comparable to Madrid in terms of subway:population. You're right that it trumps Madrid due to also having an extensive S-Bahn (331 km). Is S-Bahn like an above ground subway or is it more like a GO Train system?

So if Toronto equaled the 'best in class' (Berlin), we'd have around 500 km of track not including GO or streetcars?

Berlin (5,302,179 people over 4,435 sq km)
U-Bahn: 146 km (subway)
S-Bahn: 331 km (above ground subway???)
Straßenbahn: 192 km (streetcar)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones

Public transit isn't really that necessary for a major city really......Deregulate the taxi and private bus systems to offer more service to car-less people and relax zoning laws to allow more people to live closer to where they work, also provide subsidies to promote telecommuting...... All at the same time you would be able to phase out and abolish the TTC entirely.

People would basically be limited to the area they live in almost 24/7. There's no way our road network could accommodate any more cars than are already on them. 1 million people take TTC each day. Transportation needs to be multi-pronged. Getting rid of one piece of the puzzle would be a catastrophe.

Why not just get rid of roads?

I agree that there are a number of European cities with lots more rail than Madrid relative to population, but I don't know enough about some of those European cities to use them as examples. I just did some digging though. U-Bahn is 146 km so its comparable to Madrid in terms of subway:population. You're right that it trumps Madrid due to also having an extensive S-Bahn (331 km). Is S-Bahn like an above ground subway or is it more like a GO Train system?

So if Toronto equaled the 'best in class' (Berlin), we'd have around 500 km of track not including GO or streetcars?

Berlin (5,302,179 people over 4,435 sq km)
U-Bahn: 146 km (subway)
S-Bahn: 331 km (above ground subway???)
Straßenbahn: 192 km (streetcar)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones
S-Bahn is a full rapid transit system (metro) in the sense that it has entirely EMU trains, all door loading, frequent service (min 20 min on outer branches, much higher on central combined sections), and 100% grade separation. Some of its track is adjacent to intercity freight and passenger track, but the track is never shared as it usually is with commuter rail (similar to S-tog, and BART).

jJ5OosoPUZQ

So S-Bahn should really be included with U-Bahn to get a sense of the 'subway' track length in Berlin when comparing it to other subway systems. Toronto is at 68km? Another 400km would get us a comparable system.

S-Bahn sounds like an ICTS system that worked

So S-Bahn should really be included with U-Bahn to get a sense of the 'subway' track length in Berlin when comparing it to other subway systems. Toronto is at 68km? Another 400km would get us a comparable system.

But doesn't the S-Bahn penetrate city borders? It would be more comparable to GO in that sense, which has 444 km of rail. The S-Bahn is basically a hybrid between commuter rail and local train service since it travels outside city borders but has frequent service and several stations.

But there are a lot of metro systems that leave the city limits. Just look at Vancouver Skytrain, Washington Metro and London Underground. I believe that the first two have more trackage outside city limits than within.

The question isn't where it operates, but what it is. The trains (EMUs), frequency (20 min or greater) stations (all level boarding), routes (either elevated or underground through city center with subway-style stops), ridership (1 million/day, same as TTC subway) are all indicative of a metro system.

Yes, it is technically a hybrid system, but the only thing it has in common with GO is the length of rail, but even that isn't in common, since much of GO's tracks aren't actually it's own and are just private railways that it operates on. With the S-Bahn, all of the rail is its own and not shared, which is an indication of the level of infrastructure investment there.

By city limits he means urban area. It would be like having a metro line that ran to Newmarket. A subway line that runs to Mississauga or Vaughan is not outside of the city limits, as there is a continuous built up area to get to those locations.

But doesn't the S-Bahn penetrate city borders? It would be more comparable to GO in that sense, which has 444 km of rail. The S-Bahn is basically a hybrid between commuter rail and local train service since it travels outside city borders but has frequent service and several stations.

S-Bahn is different than U-Bahn, but often they share tracks or run paralleled services. S-Bahn has different trains and schedules than the U-Bahn and serves the outer urban areas by bringing people into the centre/central station of Berlin at key intersections. It would be comparable to GO, but the fare is integrated into one ticket and there is inner-city service. If GO ever opened up inner-city stations and became for frequent in service along with being integrated into the same fare scheme as the TTC, it would function much like the U-Bahn.

But doesn't the S-Bahn penetrate city borders? It would be more comparable to GO in that sense, which has 444 km of rail. The S-Bahn is basically a hybrid between commuter rail and local train service since it travels outside city borders but has frequent service and several stations.

S-Bahn crosses city borders in the sense that the TTC goes from Toronto and into Etobicoke. It's a subway above ground. Btw, Berlin has an inter-city regional rail service (Stadtbahn & RegionalBahn) like GO Train on top of U-Bahn and S-Bahn. Any way you slice it, Berlin's rail network makes Toronto look pitiful.

Toronto does many things well, but rail isn't one of them. Why do I always feel the need to bandage people's wounded civic pride. Only seeing our city through rose coloured glasses just hurts Toronto. Our rail is no where near good enough. Why is this even up for debate?

Toronto does many things well, but rail isn't one of them. Why do I always feel the need to bandage people's wounded civic pride. Only seeing our city through rose coloured glasses just hurts Toronto. Our rail is no where near good enough. Why is this even up for debate?

The debate, for the general public at least, is do we want to spend the large amounts of funds to catch up which may impact some of the things we currently do well (funding redistribution), or do we continue to make-do with a minimal amount of transportation options.

S-Bahn crosses city borders in the sense that the TTC goes from Toronto and into Etobicoke. It's a subway above ground. Btw, Berlin has an inter-city regional rail service (Stadtbahn & RegionalBahn) like GO Train on top of U-Bahn and S-Bahn. Any way you slice it, Berlin's rail network makes Toronto look pitiful.

Toronto does many things well, but rail isn't one of them. Why do I always feel the need to bandage people's wounded civic pride. Only seeing our city through rose coloured glasses just hurts Toronto. Our rail is no where near good enough. Why is this even up for debate?

But what would be 'good enough'? 'Good enough' to be transit in Europe? This is Toronto. Not Berlin, not London, not Paris, not New York, or any other city. We have our own set of issues and variables. I'm not saying Toronto doesn't need transit expansion. I'm one of the most vocal supporters of transit expansion. I just want to base that expansion in reality. I'd rather see Toronto build public transit that we need, where it makes sense, and where it's worthwhile, rather than building it just so we can 'catch-up' to cities in Europe. It's good to be ambitious, and looking to Berlin as an example isn't necessarily a bad idea, but we're talking about two different cities in two very different countries with two distinct transportation patterns. Public transit in Canada and our cities are never going to be as efficient and large as countries and cities in Europe. Canada doesn't have the density or the population to put rail all over the place. I'm simply saying, rather than building transit just so our total km of rail can rival Berlin, London or wherever, we should be taking out a map of the GTA, look at our current situation, and see where subways and LRT can be located based on need.

Everyone wants better public transit in Toronto, but hardly anybody ever talks about how to pay for it. We have to be realistic. The TTC is barely operational right now and depends on fare hikes every year to keep running. The Province has a $16 billion deficit and they're not willing to fund the TTC (good luck if Hudak ever gets in). We have a Mayor that thinks taxes are evil and that transit can be fully funded by magic beans donated by the private sector. Not to mention the fact that Toronto is the only major city I can think of in North America that solely funds both transit and social housing. We have to face facts as a city and look at what we need, not what we think we need based on looking at other transit networks. Comparisons are good on the surface, but once you dig deep and look into the differences between the cities, it makes sense why one places rail as more of a priority than the other.

Just so you know what transit I'm in favour of and how we'll pay for it, here's a rough idea:

- Downtown Relief Line (should be under construction right now - funded through road tolls on Gardiner/DVP)
- Finch, Sheppard, Eglinton (to airport), Scarborough LRT's (funded through McGuinty money)
- Jane, Don Mills, Harbourfront LRT's (savings at TTC, road tolls, possibly a Municipal Sales Tax or more gas tax revenue)
- All day GO service on all lines (McGuinty's campaign promise)


Most of this is already underway. We're getting a lot of transit in the years to come, even given our dismal fiscal situations. Had the Province still had the 50/50 funding agreement pre-Harris, this would all be much easier. The downloading of services to municipalities has played a huge role in our current situation today.

^^Maybe Toronto should start privatizing our TTC to get proper funds? What do you think?

Contracting out parts of the TTC can be explored, sure, ie. cleaners and maintenance workers. But privatizing the TTC altogether is a bad idea. If we did that, the operator would only want to sustain money making routes, and would cut service elsewhere in areas where transit isn't as viable. So I would expect several suburban bus routes to be eliminated, probably in addition to the Sheppard subway (which costs the TTC $8 per rider to operate). Unless maintaining a certain level of service and fares is put within the contract, private companies will be cutting corners to make money. We have to keep in mind that 70% of the TTC's operating budget is covered by fares, while 30% is from the City, so the TTC, like most public transit operators, loses money and requires subsidies. I think the only city in the world with profitable public transit is Hong Kong.

It's all politics basically. Other governments around the world fund their transit systems effectively and we can do the same here.

Upload the whole thing to a regional transportation authority..

^^Why?

So local transit matters can be dictated by an agency who could care less about local transit?

Hasn't been working too well for Translink..

Contracting out parts of the TTC can be explored, sure, ie. cleaners and maintenance workers. But privatizing the TTC altogether is a bad idea. If we did that, the operator would only want to sustain money making routes, and would cut service elsewhere in areas where transit isn't as viable. So I would expect several suburban bus routes to be eliminated, probably in addition to the Sheppard subway (which costs the TTC $8 per rider to operate). Unless maintaining a certain level of service and fares is put within the contract, private companies will be cutting corners to make money. We have to keep in mind that 70% of the TTC's operating budget is covered by fares, while 30% is from the City, so the TTC, like most public transit operators, loses money and requires subsidies. I think the only city in the world with profitable public transit is Hong Kong.

It's all politics basically. Other governments around the world fund their transit systems effectively and we can do the same here.

Actually a lot of countries that have experienced some budgetary difficulties have initiated privatization efforts to take responsibilities of their public transit. Scholarly research suggests that privatization in public transport can and, in some cases, has resulted in cost savings. Ticket prices increase or decrease based on the service provided and the amount of public subsidies. While the cost savings mainly resulted from reduced employment costs and increased productivity. There is a different and yet sometimes very effective approach to privatize a public transit, and that is to separate the operation, from the infrastructures. A private company would invest and take care of the operations, while the government will build the infrastructures. However, the only drawback that i know of in regards of separating the responsibilities are the difficulty in maintenance.

Well there are several options they can explore if they wanted to go down that route. I know when London privatized parts of their system, safety and maintenance really took a beating. In other systems, it's worked. In Toronto, we would still have to fork out a large subsidy to private companies so that less viable routes can keep running. I personally don't think transit should be run like a business, because it's not generally seen as a profit making activity. In order to make profits, they'll hire people at minimum wage if they can. If the contract included a basic service requirement, meaning that private companies must operate certain lines at certain frequencies even if they're not economically viable, then it may work better. To me, it's a risky move. If the Province came to the table and spent the money they did before on operating the TTC, we likely wouldn't have to deal with fare hikes and service cuts all the time. The TTC's annual operating budget is about $1.2 billion, so even if the Province covered a third of that, it would make a huge difference.

If we are to retain the TTC under the government's responsibility then more appropriate budget have to be considered to maintain everything from service and operation, to infrastructures. Perhaps some budget allocations are needed as well, such as more funds for the public transit, and less funds for park and recreation. In fact there are so much to sell out there for privatisation to reduce the government's headaches, but it will also reduce their overall revenues from those public services.

However, a BOT scheme could also be used through privatisation of the TTC. The Build-Operate and Transfer scheme is a type of arrangement between the government and a private company/foreign investor in which the private sector builds an infrastructure project, operates it and eventually transfer its ownership of the project to the government. In many instances, the government becomes the firm's only customer and promises to purchase at least a predetermined amount of the project's output. This ensures that the firm recoups its initial investment in a reasonable time span. The government also acts as both the consumer and the regulator.

Yeah, I know Metrolinx wants to partner with a private firm to operate and maintain the upcoming LRT lines. We'll have to wait and see how that works out.

What is a good example of a system with few delays and well maintained accessible stations? New York? Paris? London? Montreal? Don't mention any systems less than 30 years old; they simply haven't aged to the point where maintenance is $7M/km/year problem.

As I said, Toronto is doing well particularly for the resources invested.

Push for that increase in taxation and fares so TTC can do better. I've even dropped the occassional $5 bill for a single trip; do you? Why not?



I just paid 3.80 for a single trip today. I doubt that is going to do much but I am willing to spend a little extra in order to get better.

We can all agree that this 1960's system isn't up to snuff anymore. Can someone explain to me who was behind the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen(the Scarborough RT)?

The money needs to be spent. Things cannot stay this way for much longer.

Getting private partners will be very difficult for Toronto due to the TTC and her powerful unions. The reason Translink has managed to expand it's system using PPP is because the systems are automated. Private companies recoup their investments much faster due to the largest component of the price structure being greatly reduced...labour costs.

Toronto, unlike every other city on the planet, also requires tunneling in suburban areas so as not to block the view of Walmart and McDonalds. In most cities tunneling is done only when neccessary and suburban strips don't qualify. If Toronto decided to make the Eglinton Line totally grade separated they would have a far, far better chance of getting a private company to pony up some hardcore money.

^^Why?

So local transit matters can be dictated by an agency who could care less about local transit?



regional is fairly local to me, but i like biking/driving/walking.

this is a good example excepting new york.

but let s face it guys, the system in toronto is not like that good, if we compare it with a few german cities such as, berlin,munchen, hamburg,oslo norway,moscow ,even santiago de chile, we can realize that our system is very deficient ,some of those cities are not even capitals however they have a larger subway system than toronto....

I do not know i think we need to do something about it.....that ttc union is fucking our system,

The union isn't fucking anybody, the crappy neocon media is with all of it's anti-transit and anti-union bullcrap. Unions are good, and serve the working man and woman.

What we have had in Toronto and Ontario the past two decades is a brainwashed electorate that votes against its best interests, is too much in love with the automobile for it's own good, and can't conceive of anything else that's good or even better for themselves or other than the same old things that they have now. That, IMHO, is why transit hasn't gone forward, why so-called 'leaders' like Harris, McGuinty, Hudak and Ford are elected or are in power over all of us, and things are stalled and don't go forward when needed, or are retrogressive and un-progressive (and need the push from the section of the electorate that does care in the form of protests.) Until that can all change, transit in Toronto and Southern Ontario is in trouble and will stay stagnant and fucked up unless its people and leaders can wake up and do something about it.

Getting private partners will be very difficult for Toronto due to the TTC and her powerful unions. The reason Translink has managed to expand it's system using PPP is because the systems are automated. Private companies recoup their investments much faster due to the largest component of the price structure being greatly reduced...labour costs.

Ah, here we go again with the union-bashing, and the knocking of the TTC because it has humans staffing the stations instead of machines...:| People like you are the reason events like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad) might still happen to the human race, and at a time when we still need technology. But right now, the focus is on getting transit lines built, not getting flashy gimcracks installed in every TTC stop that make a 'beep' sound to take out money.

Toronto, unlike every other city on the planet, also requires tunneling in suburban areas so as not to block the view of Walmart and McDonalds. In most cities tunneling is done only when neccessary and suburban strips don't qualify. If Toronto decided to make the Eglinton Line totally grade separated they would have a far, far better chance of getting a private company to pony up some hardcore money.

Yet again with the pushing of the monorail idea and the elevated train idea on people that don't believe in it or don't want it. When are you going to give this up? :|

Toronto, unlike every other city on the planet, also requires tunneling in suburban areas so as not to block the view of Walmart and McDonalds. In most cities tunneling is done only when neccessary and suburban strips don't qualify.

Where do you get that idea from? Eglinton, Finch, Sheppard and the Scarborough line will all be LRT's, running on the street (except in the denser portions of Eglinton).

If I recall correctly, ssiguy wanted the lines to be elevated in the very same suburban strips.

Unfortunately, if Hudak is elected Premier, we can kiss an LRT network goodbye, and back to Ford's ridiculous eglinton subway scheme that will never get built because Hudak will never lower the deficit.