Join 3,436 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Toronto Needs More Shirtless Joggers
July 3, 2014 3:50 AM   Subscribe

Toronto Needs More Shirtless Joggers

Admitted crack-smoking mayor of Toronto Rob Ford returned yesterday from a stint in rehab (previously on MeFi).

During a Canada Day parade, Ford and his brother were confronted by teacher Joe Killoran, who was out for a jog. With cameras rolling, Killoran said to Ford: "You’re a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe. Answer the people’s questions. You’re a liar. You’re a racist. You’re a disgrace."

Rob's brother Doug responded today with a surprising accusation, suggesting that Killoran was, in fact, the racist. Why? Well, "you can be racist against people that eat little red apples, you can be racist against people that have a drinking problem, you can be racist against people that are too fat."
posted by modernnomad (98 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
(oops I forgot to include the link to the video)
posted by modernnomad at 3:52 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]


Using mob justice to fight stupidity might not be the best kind of society, even if it is only mocking and name-calling.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:07 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]


We've recently relocated to Ontario, where I think I can now truly understand Toronto and the rest of the province's fatigue in hearing about the Return of Rob Ford. I mean, he was on the news in Quebec, sure, but not as constantly. It's just sort of exhausting and depressing to hear the soundbites of a man who wouldn't know the word "contrite" if you physically showed him in a dictionary (after explaining the use of a dictionary first).
posted by Kitteh at 4:15 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]


Toronto needs an impeachment process.
posted by goethean at 4:16 AM on July 3


Councillor Ford? Are you available? There's an Inigo Montoya here to see you.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:19 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]


Using mob justice to fight stupidity might not be the best kind of society, even if it is only mocking and name-calling


None of that was name-calling. That was pretty much the truth, told in a somewhat forceful manner. In Ford's case, this is really the only way left to get through to him. He has lied and stonewalled his way through the past three and a half years, while at the same time doing incredibly hateful and destructive things. At his last press conference, he excluded half the press. He hasn't left many options other than confronting him in the street.


Also, one shirtless hairy guy is hardly a mob. And he made some excellent shirtless hairy points.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 4:23 AM on July 3 [20 favorites]


And I guarantee that Doug will try to get Killoran fired or disciplined at his job over this.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 4:25 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]


Using mob justice to fight stupidity might not be the best kind of society, even if it is only mocking and name-calling.

If only. Toronto would be so much better without the Ford brothers and their voters stinking the place up.
posted by MartinWisse at 4:28 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]


Every time I wonder whether my city's political campaigns and polititians can get any worse, Rob Ford & co. come along and make me feel better. I mean, sure we have someone running for judge who was suspended from practicing law for 18 months or so, we have someone running for judge who has never actually tried a criminal ccase, we have an ex-TV judge making up a story about his opponent's husband leaving her mid-campaign so she can have a relationship with a neighbor, we have two county commissioners who apparently don't live in the districts they represent, one of whom has said in affect that she believes Latinos aren't minorities in a city with a majority black population. We have a bunch of clowns, but they have glimmers of self awareness. Ford, however, has what we refer to in my household as a rich fantasy life.
posted by grimjeer at 4:36 AM on July 3


None of that was name-calling. That was pretty much the truth, told in a somewhat forceful manner.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. How is "You’re a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe.... You’re a liar. You’re a racist. You’re a disgrace." not name-calling, regardless of the fact that Ford is all of those things? None of that was intended to foster dialogue or comment critically on Ford's policies or even his personal affairs. It was just an attack, from a guy who happens to be on the side of the angels.
posted by Etrigan at 5:05 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]


At this point calling someone Rob Ford is name calling.
posted by srboisvert at 5:11 AM on July 3 [17 favorites]


How is "You’re a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe.... You’re a liar. You’re a racist. You’re a disgrace." not name-calling, regardless of the fact that Ford is all of those things?

Well, I guess calling someone a disgrace is name-calling, but it really seems to be a logical conclusion after that laundry list. "Disgrace" is pretty tame, as these things go. This sort of thing may seem complicated, but name-calling is stuff like "You're a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobic asshole... you're a lying rat cock. You're a racist dogfucker. You're a disgraceful tub of shit."

There's no real point in trying to foster dialog with a mayor who empties his press conferences of press. I would also say that "corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe" seems to be an accurate critical commentary on Ford's policies and person.

Shirtless jogger for the win.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 5:24 AM on July 3 [14 favorites]


The rehab facility that he went to, GreeneStone Residential Addiction Facility, is that actually rehab, or is it "rehab"?
posted by SPUTNIK at 5:29 AM on July 3


This made me so happy. Also, this happened as he was leaving the East York Canada Day parade early because had been booed off the parade. The same thing happened later in the day in North York.

I'm elated Toronto is finally calling this guy on his total bullshit. He's trying to use citizens and the media to in his resurrection narrative. He staged a disgusting no-questions news conference on Monday in which he picked and chose which media outlets attended (and they ridiculously played along). He claimed he was going to do sit-down interviews with all the city's media outlets. He did two 10 minute interviews yesterday and then cancelled the rest saying he had answered everyone's questions.

He hasn't even come close.

Also, Doug Ford has a history of attacking critics of the Mayor and implying they are mentally unstable. After his bullshit attacks on Killoran yesterday, he tried to trot out a high school student who claimed he had been "indoctrinated" by the teacher (it's a common right wing trope, in Canada anyway, that teachers are rabid lefties and use public schools to turn kids into socialists). Cursory questioning of the student revealed he was a "friend" of the Fords.

No sympathy for Ford. Not one drop. More people need to call him on his offensive insulting schtick.

And OP, I understand why you led with his drug use, but that is actually the least offensive thing about Ford , and makes it seem like the joggers comments are random and ad homonym. The issue with Ford is that he has repeatedly said racist, sexist, and homophobic things, has used his influence to get contracts for his family's business, as well as companies his family does business with. The police are investigating whether associates of the Mayor used violence and threats to track down the (first) infamous video of him using crack, at his request. And yet he refuses to answer police questions.

The reality is that focusing on his drug use lets him off the hook for fare more inappropriate things.
posted by dry white toast at 5:29 AM on July 3 [11 favorites]


“You can be racist against people that eat little red apples. You can be racist against people that have a drinking problem. You can be racist against people that are too fat.”

Can I be racist against people who redefine the meanings of common words to excuse their own misconduct? If so, I'm a racist. Now can you redefine asshole for us?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:40 AM on July 3 [10 favorites]


None of that was intended to foster dialogue or comment critically on Ford's policies or even his personal affairs. It was just an attack, from a guy who happens to be on the side of the angels.

The man literally will not answer questions about his policies or personal affairs. His brother, in response to the so-called name-calling, said Killoran was a "left-wing lunatic" and was trying to indoctrinate his students against Rob Ford, then proceeded to call him a racist using a made-up definition of racism.

Foster dialogue? Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? This is ROB FORD. There's no such thing as "dialogue" anymore, and you can pin precious little blame for that on people like Joe Killoran.
posted by chrominance at 5:42 AM on July 3 [19 favorites]


Also, go watch the video with the jogger in it. He demands answers on why Rob Ford blocked members of the City Hall press council from his press conference and why he hasn't commented on potential corruption related to clients of his family business lobbying City Hall.

No, you're right, clearly Joe Killoran is the reason why we can't have reasoned debate in this city about Rob Ford.
posted by chrominance at 5:47 AM on July 3 [9 favorites]


The reality is that focusing on his drug use lets him off the hook for fare more inappropriate things.

Yes. This gets forgotten so often and it frustrates the hell out of me. I understand drugs are sexy and all but in yesterday's interviews he (mostly) got to avoid questions about why he won't cooperate with the police or how he used city resources to lobby on behalf of his family business's clients.

And now he won't roll the dice again if he doesn't have to -- so he's cancelled his remaining interviews, such as they were, after promising to sit down with "every media outlet in the city" (which, to be fair, everyone with a brain knew was dishonest drivel from the moment it was said). He literally will not speak to the Toronto Sun at this point. The Toronto Sun.
posted by saturday_morning at 6:09 AM on July 3


Also, after explaining to everyone what racism actually is, Doug Ford called CityTV reporter a "jihadist" for you know, asking him questions.
posted by dry white toast at 6:20 AM on July 3


If nothing else, Rob Ford makes Vincent Gray look ethical and charming by comparison.

(And yet, even in sunny times for DC, Gray got bounced from reelection at the primary while Ford could potentially win a second term. Oh, Toronto.)
posted by psoas at 6:23 AM on July 3


No, you're right, clearly Joe Killoran is the reason why we can't have reasoned debate in this city about Rob Ford.

There is a difference between saying that Killoran wasn't engaging in reasoned debate and saying he's the reason you can't have it. Ford and Ford are definitely the reason, but let's not pretend that Killoran was on the higher moral ground and should be lauded for the quote in the FPP.
posted by Etrigan at 6:27 AM on July 3


Ford and Ford are definitely the reason, but let's not pretend that Killoran was on the higher moral ground and should be lauded for the quote in the FPP.

If I can speak on behalf of Torontonians who have lived through the last ten years of Rob Ford: Killoran is on the higher moral ground and should be lauded for the quote in the FPP.
posted by Adam_S at 6:42 AM on July 3 [30 favorites]


No, at this point, Kiloran is absolutely on higher moral ground, and should be lauded for his actions.


Compared to how the Fords have routinely comported themselves in debates in council chambers, Kiloran was a model of polite discourse.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:44 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]


Okay fine, instead let's talk about Andray Domise, an African-Canadian running for city council in Doug Ford's ward (Ford isn't running again) who politely asked the mayor on the same day if he would apologize for calling black people niggers and referring to outreach efforts in the community as "hug-a-thug" programs??

Ford's answer: "It's complicated"

How's that moral high ground looking now?

Also, Domise has penned an open letter to African-Canadians who have supported Ford. Listen for the catch phrase: Rob Ford has done more for black people than any politician in this country. You can set your watch by it.
posted by dry white toast at 7:03 AM on July 3 [3 favorites]


But no, more about Ford and Killoran.

Ford and his security staff have frequently physically assaulted reporters asking him questions. In fact, he's gone out of his way to crest physically confrontational situations with reporters so that he can play for sympathy as a victim of the media's bullying.

So yeah, the moral high ground argument is utter and complete bullshit.

I've said it before: he is a putrid excuse of rich white male privilege and he deserves whatever criticism is coming his way, shirtless jogger or otherwise.
posted by dry white toast at 7:10 AM on July 3 [3 favorites]


Toronto Needs More Shirtless Joggers

It's an r > g world. We're all shirtless joggers now.
posted by mondo dentro at 7:12 AM on July 3


The Ford brothers are, simply, the worst. There is nothing redeemable about them, not a single goddamn solitary thing. They are gutless cowards, spoiled little rich boys who have never had to learn that the world is not all about them, and the dissonance between their internal winning-at-everything narrative and the actual reality of the world - where Doug's signal achievement is taking an already-successful label company and expanding it, and Rob's signal achievement is basically not dying despite inhaling a metric tonne of drugs - is making them lash out at absolutely everybody.

They are hateful, malicious people, and they need to go away forever. October can't get here soon enough.
posted by mightygodking at 7:30 AM on July 3 [13 favorites]


Using mob justice to fight stupidity might not be the best kind of society, even if it is only mocking and name-calling.

Mobs use violence. Citizens of democracies use words. All the way back to the dawn of the frelling democratic tradition citizens have been under no obligation to be polite to their invariably fracked up leaders. This is true in general, and a symptom of a healthy democracy, and gorrammit it's true ten times over in the case of Rob drokking Ford.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:43 AM on July 3 [3 favorites]


They are hateful, malicious people, and they need to go away forever. October can't get here soon enough.

Doug Ford got about six times as many votes as the candidate who came in second in 2010, and Rob Ford is running in a three-way race against two candidates whose best feature is that they aren't Rob Ford. Sigh.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:45 AM on July 3


Killoran's demands are hardly unreasonable. If things were as they should be, no one should even have to be making those demands. I don't understand how the Fords could get anyone's support.
posted by Daddy-O at 7:52 AM on July 3


let's not pretend that Killoran was on the higher moral ground and should be lauded for the quote in the FPP.

You tell me how you debate someone who literally will not talk to you or answer your perfectly reasonable questions. You tell me how you debate someone who calls you a racist because in his twisted reality, being criticized on the street is the same as racism. You tell me how you debate someone who regularly distorts the truth during actual political debates, and doesn't actually seem to care when the media call him on it (which, by the by, doesn't happen often enough).

Killoran WAS on the higher moral ground. He SHOULD be lauded for his quote. Ford WON'T answer questions about his own documented racist and homophobic remarks and deeds, he won't answer questions about his potential corruption, he won't answer questions about why he won't cooperate with police investigations. What do you want Killoran to do, present a nicely-worded letter to Rob Ford while wearing a three-piece suit? A letter Ford will just ignore anyways? A suit that Doug Ford will just dismiss as the cloak of a latte-sipping downtown elitist? Why is it suddenly Killoran's responsibility to do absolutely everything correctly when his opponent refuses to get even the basic fundamentals of running a government, or being a public figure, or just BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING correct?
posted by chrominance at 7:52 AM on July 3 [12 favorites]


Doug's not running again, but there are strong hints their nephew Mike Ford is going to run for that seat instead.

Considering that Doug won Rob's former council seat with pretty much zero campaigning for himself, the Ford name goes a long way in that riding and Mike might be a shoo-in for that very reason.

Does anyone happen to know how Mike Ford is related to Rob and Doug? Because as shocking as it may be, those two are the functional siblings in their family.
posted by thecjm at 7:57 AM on July 3


You tell me how you debate someone who literally will not talk to you or answer your perfectly reasonable questions.

You call that a debate? Did Killoran accomplish anything? Are there people out there who had no opinion about Rob Ford who have suddenly realized that he's a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe because some dude called him a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe? Do you think Rob Ford is at home right now thinking, Whoa, I need to make some serious changes in my life?

Sure, it's nice to give shitbags the what-for, but it doesn't do anything. Pretending that Killoran did anything is no different from Ford and his enablers pretending that Killoran is part of some kind of problem that they're fighting against. It's a fucking sideshow to serious governance, and dragging the conversation down to Ford's level is exactly what he fucking wants. You've heard about why you don't mud-wrestle with a pig, right?
posted by Etrigan at 8:02 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]


Doug's not running again, but there are strong hints their nephew Mike Ford is going to run for that seat instead.

The "strong hints" at this point are Doug saying it straight-up so yeah, it's happening.

Mike Ford is their brother Randy Ford's son. He's 21. I know for a fact that he has stated that his experience on high school student council counts as governance experience. His candidacy is just the Fords doing what the Fords do, which is thinking they can get away with whatever the fuck they want.

The problem is this: in Ward 2, Rob is still loved (ten years of his endless retail politicking and favor-doing has given him that). But Doug is widely disliked, because everybody figured Doug would just take over where Rob left off, except Doug doesn't do what Rob used to do and everybody in Ward 2 figures that a city councillor is basically supposed to be like a free handyman and they're pissed that Doug isn't coming to mow their lawns.

So, hilariously, Doug is tarnishing the Ford brand in their home ward. And as a result, Mikey Ford stands a damn good chance of losing the home turf.
posted by mightygodking at 8:04 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]


You call that a debate? Did Killoran accomplish anything? Are there people out there who had no opinion about Rob Ford who have suddenly realized that he's a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe because some dude called him a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe? Do you think Rob Ford is at home right now thinking, Whoa, I need to make some serious changes in my life?

Well shit, I guess I shouldn't vote for Joe Killoran then, he's clearly failed at his job of—oh wait, he's just a guy running on a street.

I don't have to think Killoran created constructive change to think he did an awesome thing. I've given up on the idea that anyone can make Rob Ford change for the better. The only goal is to force Rob Ford out of office. That's not Killoran's job any more than it's any other voter's job, or all of our jobs collectively.

Also: I frankly don't give a shit if Rob Ford goes home and thinks he needs to make changes in his life.
posted by chrominance at 8:07 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]


It's a fucking sideshow to serious governance, and dragging the conversation down to Ford's level is exactly what he fucking wants.

No, it isn't. Rob Ford doesn't want to drag the conversation down to his level; he simply doesn't want there to be a conversation at all, because Rob Ford doesn't want to talk to anybody, because talking to people means recognizing that other people have different needs than you. Rob Ford wants to talk at people and be praised. That's all he's ever wanted.

People in Toronto tried the high road for years when it came to Rob Ford and he treated it like permission to be worse. At least when you attack him, he flees like a coward - because he's a coward - and his true nature is, at least temporarily, exposed.
posted by mightygodking at 8:09 AM on July 3 [10 favorites]


It's a fucking sideshow to serious governance, and dragging the conversation down to Ford's level is exactly what he fucking wants. You've heard about why you don't mud-wrestle with a pig, right?


If it's a sideshow to serious governance, it's because the Ford brothers have turned City Hall into a god-damned circus!

Sometimes it just feels good to see someone finally get the chance to say what many of us have wanted to.


Also, this is getting mighty close to a tone argument.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:09 AM on July 3


Sure, it's nice to give shitbags the what-for, but it doesn't do anything.

This is not only totally false, it's dangerous in a democratic republic.

Just as one glaring example, in the US we've never officially given the "what-for" to the Neocons (and their fellow travelers), whose lies and corruption cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of US lives, and half a million Iraqi lives. The result? They're still invited on TV to spew even more lies. Failure to publicly shame them--let alone prosecute them--has allowed them to persist in their destructive behaviors.

So, no: naming greed and deception, and calling it out with righteous indignation like our shirtless friend does here, is a fundamental moral act in civil society. Without it, all kinds of illegal and corrupt behaviors are allowed to fester and become normalized.
posted by mondo dentro at 8:21 AM on July 3 [4 favorites]


let's not pretend that Killoran was on the higher moral ground and should be lauded for the quote in the FPP.

No need to pretend.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 8:22 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]


Toronto needs an impeachment process.

That is the last thing Toronto needs. It would inevitably be turned into a political sword of Damocles hanging over any mayor's head. What we need to do is separate the executive and ceremonial functions of mayor. Which is essentially what Council did when they stripped Ford of every power they could.

The rehab facility that he went to, GreeneStone Residential Addiction Facility, is that actually rehab, or is it "rehab"?

Any rehab facility that doesn't take away its inpatient's phones the moment they arrive is "rehab." Any rehab facility that allows people in treatment for alcohol and drug addiction out on unsupervised passes is "rehab."

GreeneStone is the kind of place where celebrities go so they can say they went to rehab. According to both my psychiatrist and my case worker (both of whom have experience working in inpatient rehab, my case worker for twenty years of her career), not one single thing about what has happened since ford went to GreeneStone is consistent with substance abuse rehabilitation best practices. Not one. The very first thing they do as soon as you enter the building is take away your cellphone. Then your clothes (temporarily) to be fully laundered and/or searched, just in case you're sneaking in something. And no way in hell are you allowed out unsupervised within a week or two (I can't remember the exact timeline), ever.

Go to their website and read about them. They're not rehab.

Rob Ford is running in a three-way race against two candidates whose best feature is that they aren't Rob Ford. Sigh.

You're joking, right? I may not agree with Tory on everything (although I do agree with Chow on most things, especially making transit Toronto's #1 priority), but both of them have a hell of a lot more going for them than 'not being Rob Ford.'

Even so, 'not being Rob Ford' is more than enough reason to vote for either of them. (Or Stintz, for that matter. Who I think is going to drop out Septemberish and throw her support behind Chow because a) Stintz can't win, and b) they have deeply shared beliefs on transit.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:37 AM on July 3 [5 favorites]


(oh also I can't remember who I made the $5 bet with, but I guess the clock started ticking yesterday)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:44 AM on July 3


Or Stintz, for that matter. Who I think is going to drop out Septemberish and throw her support behind Chow because a) Stintz can't win, and b) they have deeply shared beliefs on transit.

If Stintz drops out - and it's questionable that she will because this run isn't about becoming mayor because she never had a shot at it, but rather about advocating publicly for certain interests where private sector friends of hers benefit and which will likely land her numerous board seats post-campaign - she probably won't be supporting Chow, since on transit they actually disagree on numerous issues (most notably Scarborough LRT versus subway) and also because Stintz's political network is the big business machine that used to be Liberal and is now Conservative, whereas Chow gets her support from the labour/activist networks that benefit the NDP.

Basically Stintz and Chow are on opposite ends of multiple aspects of the political spectrum. Stintz would be more likely to endorse John Tory; they used to be allies, after all.
posted by mightygodking at 8:45 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]


You have much more insider knowledge than I do, MGK, but I stand by my assertion. They may have different notions about how transit needs to be implemented, but they agree it is Toronto's absolute top priority. Heard and understood about where their support networks come from, but... I dunno, maybe I'm being overly idealistic, but I want to believe that Stintz is less of a scheming conniver than that, and really truly believes that Toronto needs major transit solutions yesterday. Tory doesn't really seem to.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:48 AM on July 3


Or Stintz, for that matter. Who I think is going to drop out Septemberish and throw her support behind Chow because a) Stintz can't win, and b) they have deeply shared beliefs on transit.

Stintz and Chow share beliefs on transit? That's news to me. I mean, they both agree transit is important (and you'd hope Stintz would, seeing as how she used to be TTC chair), but so does pretty much every other major candidate whose last name isn't Ford. Even Ford would say it's important, so long as it's subways and nothing else.

Besides that, their respective platforms are pretty far apart. Stintz wants to keep the current Scarborough subway plan and its associated property tax hike. She also wants to build a downtown relief line, and proposes to pay for portions of it by selling off the majority of Toronto Hydro while asking the province pretty please to not levy the tax penalty they normally would on such a big sale of a public service. Chow wants to scrap the subway plan and return to the original Scarborough LRT plan that had been fully funded by the province before Rob Ford deep-sixed it in favour of a subway, Stintz and council resurrected the LRT plan, and finally deep-sixed it AGAIN because reasons. She also wants to build a downtown relief line, but will only commit to it if sufficient provincial and federal backing is available (meaning, who the hell knows), and might instead decide to put the funds towards maintaining a state of good repair, which is also something the TTC needs badly. Also, she would shelve the property tax increase used to pay for the Scarborough subway--but then re-levy it if a downtown relief line is on the cards again.

About Stintz specifically, also remember that during the campaign she's actually carried water for Rob Ford ("he's an awful man but his policies were actually great!") and worked on John Tory's previous mayoral campaign. If anything, she'll throw her support to Tory.
posted by chrominance at 8:49 AM on July 3 [3 favorites]


I want to believe that Stintz is less of a scheming conniver than that, and really truly believes that Toronto needs major transit solutions yesterday. Tory doesn't really seem to.

One: We ARE talking about the same Karen Stintz that, after rescuing Transit City from Rob Ford's connivances, then decided to put together a new transit plan without the input of council at large (only certain councillors), and then when that plan fell apart began supporting the same Scarborough subway she used to advocate against when she rescued Transit City? This is the woman who believes Toronto needs major transit solutions yesterday? This is the woman who doesn't scheme?

Two: Not that I like John Tory that much in this race, but he's the one who's got a mid-term relief plan that might actually get somewhere. Though GO electrification is not exactly his idea, nor is the concept of using Toronto rail corridors to run commuter rail, at least he's made that a significant part of his platform. And now that the Liberals have won an election based on the promise of better regional rail (among other things, of course), Tory's plan actually has a shot of coming true. Of course, we still don't know where the funding will come from or who will run the service (will it be in concert with GO? will Metrolinx run it?). And it's definitely NOT a downtown relief line like the one he implied he supported months ago, when he railed on Chow for not supporting downtown relief in any form.
posted by chrominance at 8:55 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]


*shrug*

I'm entitled to my opinion, thanks.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:57 AM on July 3


You call that a debate? Did Killoran accomplish anything?

Oh wow. Seriously?

As I said above, the Ford's are trying to carefully manage Rob's narrative. Go to rehab, get better, do a few interviews, talk about the Gravy Train, win the people over. And they're deluded enough to think they can play voters and the media like a violin to control their message. Actually, for large segments of voters and the media, they haven't been far off.

So what did Killoran accomplish? He called bullshit on the whole enterprise on Day 1. To Ford's face and in front of the media. He reminded the whole city that Ford's "it wasn't me, it was the addiction" cover up is nothing but a dodge. Perhaps it was only remarkable in that it's happened so rarely. But all the more reason it needed to happen.
posted by dry white toast at 9:02 AM on July 3 [6 favorites]


Fair enough. Sorry about my tone, this whole mayoral campaign does stupid things to me.
posted by chrominance at 9:03 AM on July 3


To me too, actually. And I am finding myself suddenly much less sanguine about Ford's non-re-election. Which is depressing as all fuck, because if he does win, I can't even move out of the city for another 14 months.

Probably goes without saying, but I'm voting Chow. Not just b/c transit, but b/c she actually seems to be engaging the people of Toronto in a dialogue. Plus I think she is far more likely to have success negotiating with Wynne than Tory would.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:06 AM on July 3


And feckless, no offense but I don't know what campaign you're watching. Stintz has attacked Chow more than she's attacked Tory, which is who she needs to be stealing votes from. She's being a caricature of right wing mudslinging, calling Chow an NDPer at every opportunity.

And on transit, every one thinks it's a priority. Chow and Stintz have been going at each other non stop about the Scarborough Subway.

Stintz has actually tried to embrace Ford's politics. She said she didn't think his policies were bad, just his behaviour.

A Chow endorsement ain't happening.
posted by dry white toast at 9:07 AM on July 3


You're joking, right?

Olivia Chow's site has three "issues" pages: children, transit, and jobs. It is literally the case that the first two words on two of those pages are "Rob Ford."

Chow promises to expand after-school programs and pay for it...somehow. She promises to increase the number of buses on the roads, and pay for it...somehow. (Note that this will do absolutely nothing to improve the speed of bus routes that are too slow during rush hour because they have to compete with phalanxes of cars.) She promises to scrap the current Scarborough subway proposal, but says that the light rail she proposes won't actually run along the roads it purports to serve (so what's the point?). She plans to beg Queen's Park and Ottawa to give us some of our tax dollars back to fund transit; help is more likely to come from the former now that Wynne has been re-elected, but the federal government will happily keep bleeding us dry as long as Harper is PM.

John Tory's signature proposal is to ask Metrolinx to add subway-like service to a couple of GO lines that doesn't actually go where that many people live and work. Oh, and plant some trees. He promises to "bring the city together, not polarize its people," but doesn't directly name Rob Ford.

Rob Ford is awful, but the leading candidates to replace him are not great.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:17 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]


calling Chow an NDPer at every opportunity

Chow is an NDPer.

Beyond that, look...

1) Saying 'no offence' doesn't actually give you a pass to say something offensive
2) reread pls
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:17 AM on July 3


Rob Ford is awful, but the leading candidates to replace him are not great.

'Not great' is still head, shoulders, pelvis, feet, and a few miles above Rob Ford, so that's good enough for me. Miller as a good candidate was something of an anomaly in Toronto municipal politics.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:22 AM on July 3


Isn't Mikey son of Kathy, Ford's drug-abusing, toothbrush-stealing sister, shot in the face in her parents' basement, and one of her partners, I think Ennio Stirpe, convicted murderer?
posted by TimTypeZed at 9:26 AM on July 3


You say that like those are bad things

(translated to Ford speak...)

"How DARE you invade my family privacy you lefty commie racists?"
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:29 AM on July 3


'Not great' is still head, shoulders, pelvis, feet, and a few miles above Rob Ford, so that's good enough for me.

And that's what they're campaigning on.

Seriously, with all of the impossible promises and apparent lack of understanding of the power the mayor actually has (or doesn't), it feels like I'm watching a race for freshman class president.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:30 AM on July 3


He claimed he was going to do sit-down interviews with all the city's media outlets. He did two 10 minute interviews yesterday and then cancelled the rest saying he had answered everyone's questions.

His campaign manager Brother Doug promised interviews with "each and every" media outlet in Toronto, which turned out to be CP24 and the CBC. The rest were cancelled shortly after an awkward interview with Dwight Drummond of CBC (which CBC fact-checked here).
posted by ricochet biscuit at 9:50 AM on July 3


Doug Ford made a promise he didn't keep?

I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:15 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]


She promises to scrap the current Scarborough subway proposal, but says that the light rail she proposes won't actually run along the roads it purports to serve (so what's the point?).

The point is that the light rail line, as designed, runs off-road and intersects with them at key points so that you get the benefits of a rail line without having it impede traffic, which is a sticking point for a lot of drivers. The route was designed some time ago for that exact purpose.

Chow promises to expand after-school programs and pay for it...somehow. She promises to increase the number of buses on the roads, and pay for it...somehow.

She's been honest that she plans to use the additional money allocated by the province for the subway which will be left over once we switch back to LRT for additional transit and other funding, and to be honest the province probably won't complain - the Liberals have recaptured Fortress Toronto and Kathleen Wynne wants to keep it that way (and besides, it's good policy to invest in Toronto anyway). It's not the worst strategy in the world given the general paucity of tools that municipalities have to raise funds.
posted by mightygodking at 10:27 AM on July 3 [3 favorites]


I feel very hurt and betrayed that despite the title this thread is not actually about the dearth of shirtless joggers and how this hurdle can be overcome.
posted by elizardbits at 10:27 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]


for u, lizbits
posted by psoas at 10:49 AM on July 3


The point is that the light rail line, as designed, runs off-road and intersects with them at key points so that you get the benefits of a rail line without having it impede traffic

If the rail line is moved away from major streets, you don't get the benefits of a rail line. See: Scarborough RT, where all of the stations except Scarborough Centre are placed as far from major roads as possible, and there's essentially no density near the stations. The Scarborough subway proposal at least runs under Danforth Road and McCowan Road, but the LRT proposal, as it currently stands, would keep the alignment that's between Kennedy and Midland and inconvenient to both of them, and supplement it with an alignment that's just far enough north of Ellesmere not to serve it directly.

Building transit is pointless if you put it as far as possible from where people actually want to go.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:49 AM on July 3


Metafilter: ad homonym
posted by workerant at 11:27 AM on July 3


The Scarborough subway proposal at least runs under Danforth Road and McCowan Road

It doesn't matter a damn where the line runs; it only matters where it stops, because that's where people not currently traveling on the line will interact with it. The subway proposal has three stops - one at McCowan and Lawrence, one at McCowan north of Ellesmere, and one at McCowan and Sheppard. The LRT has the McCowan/Ellesmere stop but then duplicates the RT but adds a stop for Centennial College (which is a bigger transit point than anything else on the existing RT or the proposed subway route) and extends to Sheppard and Markham.

The one benefit of the subway line is getting the McCowan/Lawrence stop (easy transit access to the Scarborough Hospital area would be good) but the tradeoff is that you aren't properly servicing the only real residential density buildup in the area - the condos at Brimley, which are about equidistant from the proposed subway stop on Lawrence and the proposed LRT stop at Lawrence East. And you don't get the Centennial stop, and you lose the Scarborough Centre stop.

And it matters, because the subway costs double what the LRT does, and any changes that are proposed to it simply increase its cost, and most importantly Scarborough's population density does not and will not anytime soon require the expense of a subway - like, not for decades. We don't have to worry about needing subway-level rail in Scarborough until the effective lifespan of whatever we build now is over.
posted by mightygodking at 12:26 PM on July 3 [2 favorites]


The Scarborough LRT is perfectly fine having stations in the middle of nowhere (Midland station is beside a cardboard recycling plant. Why?) because its only point is to get you onto the Bloor-Danforth line or possibly Scarborough Town Centre. The buses take you to the station (or you get dropped off), the LRT takes you to Kennedy and then you go downtown to work.

The TTC's ridership statistics make for interesting reading. Usage of the Scarborough and Sheppard lines are almost non-existent. Neither justify a subway. Although at the very least the Sheppard line has spurred development in the central North York area. I do not see any similar benefit for a Scarborough subway.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:32 PM on July 3


It doesn't matter a damn where the line runs; it only matters where it stops, because that's where people not currently traveling on the line will interact with it.

Right, and the Scarborough RT currently has two stops that are usable as something other than a transfer point to/from buses: Kennedy and Scarborough Centre. The LRT proposal adds one more: Centennial. There's absolutely no point in entrenching the other useless stations by putting LRT down the current RT corridor. (Bessarion is twice as busy as Ellesmere, and almost as busy as Midland.)

They're never going to be useful as long as they're purposely stationed away from places people want to go. Promising to keep them away from city streets is as stupid as Rob Ford's proposal to run the Finch West LRT down the hydro corridor: there's nothing there, and you will never get real, workable, integrated transit as long as you prohibit transit from being anywhere near anything else.

Building the light rail down the proposed subway corridor might be the best solution.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:16 PM on July 3


"Sure, it's nice to give shitbags the what-for, but it doesn't do anything. Pretending that Killoran did anything is no different from Ford and his enablers pretending that Killoran is part of some kind of problem that they're fighting against. It's a fucking sideshow to serious governance, and dragging the conversation down to Ford's level is exactly what he fucking wants. You've heard about why you don't mud-wrestle with a pig, right?"

"You know, that Hitler has made some mistakes in civic government, but that doesn't mean we should call him names."

Dude's a fuckwad, and the more time he has to spend defending himself against the perception that he's a fuckwad, the less actual campaigning he can do.

(Though I do appreciate him from down here in the States, since it's rare to have such a hilariously inept politician in our great white north.)
posted by klangklangston at 1:41 PM on July 3 [1 favorite]


Try living here klang. The hilarity evaporated over three years ago. It's just been embarrassing and painful. (Which, yes, means I need to check my attitudes on hilariously inept US politicians.)

Rob Ford will go down in Toronto's history as a stark example of what happens when you vote for style over substance. The Liberal sweep of Toronto on June 12 gives me hope, but like I said, I'm less confident that Ford will lose the election in October. "I went to rehab" is his get out of jail free card, and it doesn't seem like anyone's really interested in holding his feet to the fire about using his influence at City Hall to benefit his family's business.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:56 PM on July 3


"Try living here klang. The hilarity evaporated over three years ago."

Sorry, man. Tragedy + distance = comedy. And no, don't worry about checking your sneering at our elected fuckups — Ford'd barely make our shitheel farm teams.
posted by klangklangston at 2:25 PM on July 3


Tragedy + distance = comedy.

That's fair. We'll probably be laughing about it here in ten years.

But I mean fuck, the man is so inept he makes me miss the halcyon years of Mel Lastman. That would be the mayor who didn't want to go to Africa because he was afraid of being boiled in a pot.

Not even joking. Rob Ford makes Toronto's (and, formerly, North York's) most useless and ignorant mayor ever look good.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:37 PM on July 3


Worth noting that Mammoliti, also running for mayor, has been found to have violated all sorts of rules by using city staff and resources for an event he made $80K on.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:44 PM on July 3 [1 favorite]


Which makes me wonder if the integrity commissioner is investigating Ford, on reflection.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:09 PM on July 3


Mammoliti, also running for mayor

This is not happening, as far as I know. And thank god, because I would probably commit suicide if that happened.
posted by chrominance at 3:44 PM on July 3 [1 favorite]


I was quite certain he'd thrown his hat in the ring? Or maybe he just made noises about it and never filled out the paperwork.

Please don't joke about suicide. Please.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:53 PM on July 3


You might be thinking of Denzil Minnan-Wong, who was indeed thinking of running for mayor (and I think had an exploratory committee?) at one point but never signed up. Mammo, of course, is probably ALWAYS thinking about running for mayor, because that would just be perfect for Toronto if we decided to really take this city into the depths of the earth by considering him for mayor so of course he's considered it.

My bad. Replace the above comment with "I would probably have to get in a time machine and stop the combination of amino acids that eventually leads to the development of the human race to ensure this atrocity never occurs."
posted by chrominance at 4:51 PM on July 3


Are there people out there who had no opinion about Rob Ford who have suddenly realized that he's a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe because some dude called him a corrupt, lying, racist, homophobe?

I think it is possible. Public opinion can be fickle, and surprisingly swift in a turn of the wheel of fortune, especially when a shirtless man calls out the nature of the Emperor's Clothes, worn by a monarch whose bloated regime is long overdue for a puncture which many interested and disinterested people are eagerly waiting for.

(yeah, as an elected official he is not technically a "monarch", but the mayor's style of governance really has a kinda medieval times feel to it.)
posted by ovvl at 6:46 PM on July 3


chrominance: forgiven in that context, but maybe think for a few seconds more in the future about referring to something that those of us who are mentally ill often struggle with daily? I mean that in a respectful and sincere way, I am not attacking you.

(yeah, as an elected official he is not technically a "monarch", but the mayor's style of governance really has a kinda medieval times feel to it.)

I would absolutely agree with that. RoFo seems to have thought that mayor=King of Toronto.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:27 PM on July 3


I feel very hurt and betrayed that despite the title this thread is not actually about the dearth of shirtless joggers and how this hurdle can be overcome.

Yeah me too but then I got to read about subway lines in Toronto so it's all good.
posted by medusa at 8:59 PM on July 3


I feel very hurt and betrayed that despite the title this thread is not actually about the dearth of shirtless joggers and how this hurdle can be overcome.

Hang out in your local gaybourhood for a while and you'll be ok.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:02 PM on July 3


I lived in Scarborough for years, including the time that Kennedy station, then the RT first started operating. I commuted from southern Etobicoke to Scarborough City Centre from 2001 to 2010 (bus, subway, RT, bus) and I still use the RT several times a year. So I Have Opinions On This Matter.

There's absolutely no point in entrenching the other useless stations by putting LRT down the current RT corridor.

There's one great point: the corridor and stations are already built, saving time and money. The new LRT replaces the track/power source and trains only. If you want to design a brand new LRT line along some other path, that will take a lot longer and cost a lot more money. This LRT plan keeps two high quality stations and adds at least one more for a lot less investment than any subway or revised LRT plan.

See this PDF of 2012-2013 ridership numbers for each station. Here's the two current stations that we agree are doing well:
- Kennedy (34,300) outperforms 17 Line 1 stations, 25 Line 2 stations, and 4 Line 4 (Sheppard) stations.
- SCC (29,610) beats 16 on Line 1, 23 Line 2 stations and 3 stations in Line 4.

But Lawrence East (8370) is pretty solid, too. It outperforms Glencairn, Museum, Rosedale, Summerhill, Castle Frank, Chester, and Old Mill as well as a couple of newer Sheppard stations (Bessarion and Leslie). So let's call that a decent second tier station that pulls its weight.

The McCowan and Midland stations, while pretty sad, still outperform Bessarion. Low bar, I know, but as these are already built, and the track has to run through them, they are probably worth using. Yeah, Ellesmere is dead last in the list. I don't know if the cost of staffing and maintaining that station is enough to justify keeping that as a stop or if they should just close up shop and zoom through there.

Even the saddest RT stations, once converted to LRT, could attract more riders despite their poor locations. The subway connection at Kennedy will be a lot more manageable (this will be just one stairway/escalator to connect to the LRT, similar to the way Sheppard connects to the Yonge line). And the new LRT vehicles will also be a lot more pleasant than the current ones. I have spent a LOT of time on the tiny, noisy, rattly RT and have no great affection for it. I have also spent some time on both the Calgary and Edmonton LRT systems in both summer and winter, and there's just no comparison.

The LRT plan is great value. Not perfect, but better than any of the subway plans on the table. Did you know that not only do the provincial plans require that Toronto budget over $900 million for the three stop subway, but (according to a source I can't find right now -- will keep looking) that the city will be 100% on the hook for any cost over-runs, plus all maintenance/operations? The current LRT plan is completely funded by the province.

The TTC is currently criminally underfunded. We're about $3 billion short of the capital funding we need for the next decade. Let's just build the fully funded and fully planned LRT.
posted by maudlin at 9:16 PM on July 3 [2 favorites]


The TTC is currently criminally underfunded.

Quoted for the motherfucking truth.

However, see today's (yesterday's) Speech from the Throne for Ontario. Wynne is going all-in on supporting transit in Toronto.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:24 PM on July 3


Lawrence East's ridership numbers would probably not suffer horribly if the station moved over to McCowan.

A lot of the ridership at Ellesmere and Midland (and probably McCowan) is clearly driven by the fact that a bus runs down each of those roads; the only reasonable way to get to these stations (and Lawrence East) is by bus, since there's not much of interest right near any of the stations other than Kennedy or Scarborough Centre. The fact that the York Mills bus is incredibly frequent, but that Ellesmere is the least-used station in the entire system, is a sign that it's poorly placed.

The RT tracks are halfway between Kennedy and Midland, and convenient to neither. Lawrence East and Ellesmere are wedged under overpasses and next to a GO Transit line. Those areas are not going to sprout an Eaton Centre on top of them in my lifetime. It's like Rob Ford's campaign proposal to move the Finch line to the hydro corridor: there's nothing next to it, and no way to build anything next to it, but hey, at least it's cheap.

We'd be much better off building LRT along following the proposed subway route but stopping more frequently, or even just going up along Midland and Ellesmere (instead of in the middle of nowhere) rather than putting a majority of the stations in locations where we already know, from decades of experience, that if you build it, they won't come.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:25 PM on July 3


Some of the current RT stations are badly placed. No argument here. Your suggested new station locations for an LRT would be great if we're starting from scratch, but we aren't. We have an existing corridor, existing stations, full provincial funding for the plan as written, and a completed EA for the plan as written. Creating a new LRT corridor along the subway path and/or modifying the current RT corridor and building / demolishing some stations will cost several hundred million dollars. Will we gain enough usage at a handful of stations to justify the costs and delay?

The current LRT plan (using an existing corridor and stations) isn't like Ford's plan re Finch at all. He's talking about changing plans for a line and stops that haven't been built yet. This LRT plan isn't about "build the stations and they will come", either. The stations are already built. Some attract a lot of riders, others attract fewer riders. It isn't optimal, but is it functional and affordable?

The transit system tolerates a certain amount of bad decision making when it comes to station choices. There are several stretches of the existing system where one or more stations are greatly underused compared to adjacent stations. Look at the usage for Eglinton W-Glencairn-Lawrence W: 21,650-6,140-19,730. How about Yonge/Bloor-Rosedale-Summerhill-St. Clair: 211,280-6,990-5,880-39,880? On the Bloor line, we have Broadview-Chester-Pape: 28,860-6,760-25,100, as well as similar patterns at Jane-Old Mill-Royal York and Sherbourne-Castle Frank-Broadview.

We still transfer buses and staff / maintain Glencairn, Rosedale, Summerhill, Chester, Old Mill and Castle Frank despite the fact that their usage is a lot closer to the numbers for Lawrence East, McCowan, Midland and even Ellesmere than the numbers for any of their adjacent stations.

If the current system can tolerate several under-used stations in between more heavily travelled stations, the LRT route is something we can handle, too. I don't expect Eaton Centre numbers from any of these, the same as I don't expect Old Mill to become a shopping or residential epicentre any time in the coming decades. I expect that we get a fast, efficient LRT line that will hit several needed areas while carrying some weaker stations, the same as every subway line we have now.
posted by maudlin at 11:36 PM on July 3


Using an existing corridor that isn't near anything just to save money is the reason why Victoria Park is listed "at Danforth" on the map but isn't, Warden isn't near anything, and Kennedy is a five-minute walk from Kennedy and Eglinton. These stations are of inherently limited utility if you can't realistically get to them other than by taking the bus; and the fact that there's no potential for foot traffic is why you won't ever see anything built in those locations unless that area is drastically reconfigured.

And bus traffic is certainly a huge driver of passenger numbers: of the stations you cited, Rosedale has only one connecting route plus the Yonge bus, Summerhill has only the Yonge bus, Glencairn has only one route, and Chester has no connections to any surface transit at all.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 5:10 AM on July 4


Speaking as someone who used to live in Rosedale, that station is vital.

Not just for us poors who happened to luck into affordable apartments, surprisingly. If I was taking the bus in the morning, there was actually a surprising number of Bay Street types who were taking TTC to work. We'd get to the station, and (sigh, of course), the bus would be refilled by the nannies and the housekeepers heading to work.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:15 AM on July 4


(And actually I used to live right by Chester as a kid. The numbers may be low, but if you live on e.g. Hampton, and later Wolfrey, as I did, it's either Chester or a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong walk to Pape or Broadview. Plus the Danforth is increasingly becoming a destination for dining and partying and Chester is right in the thick of it. Anyway these are all red herrings because none of those stations are going to be decommissioned.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:20 AM on July 4


Going away to rehab had one other unexpected consequence: It gave Torontonians a taste of how much of a relief it was not to have Rob Ford in town. You could go to parades he wasn’t around to boycott, or sports games he wasn’t around to belligerently disrupt then deny belligerently disrupting. Sometimes you’d hear from the deputy mayor, bless him, who appeared to think there was more to the job than recreational pugilism. It felt like living in a city for a change, instead of being trapped inside an existential knot. And if it felt that good for two months, just imagine it for four years. -- Ivor Tossell, Globe and Mail, 3 July 2014
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:32 AM on July 4 [2 favorites]


omdtlp: Using the current corridor for the LRT won't just save money: it's a route that works pretty well already. It already has two highly-used stations (Kennedy and SCC) and will add one more important station (Centennial), with several potential new stations possible in Malvern and beyond, tempers and budgets permitting. Lawrence East may be oddly placed, but it still gets used more than many subway stations. In addition, Kennedy may be in an odd spot under the overpass a short distance from Kennedy proper, but the only BD station that sees more usage is Yonge-Bloor. The Islington and Kipling west end stations, with their extensive connections to Mississauga Transit, only beat Kennedy if you combine their total usage.

The remaining stations may see more use with the LRT gains in speed, comfort and convenience over RT, or they may stay relatively stagnant, but as long as we support Chester, etc. for the payoff at Pape, etc. we can support weaker LRT stations.

(Don't worry, fffm, I wasn't suggesting dumping any of your favourite subway stations. They certainly get used by thousands of people a day. I brought them up to show that a disparity in station usage isn't strictly a Scarborough/Sheppard issue.)

So that's the LRT plan that gives us 3-4 solid stations for NO additional cost to the city versus 3 solid stations for an additional $900 million (plus over-runs, plus maintenance forever, plus operations forever) for the subway plan, versus an optimized LRT route with some shifted and some new stations that may take several more years and potentially hundreds of millions to complete.

We still have that $3 billion under-funding problem, state of good repair is a misty memory, the BD and Yonge lines are still jammed and we still need a downtown relief line (or whatever euphemism is in current favour).

I can't see enough of a payoff in optimizing the LRT corridor given the TTC's need for both capital and operating funding that we just don't have yet. If we were starting from scratch, damn right we should put those stations somewhere else. But we aren't starting from scratch. This is where I'm a satisficer, I guess.

Actual Ford-related content: that Tossell piece linked by richochet buscuit is a gem. Go go go read it.
posted by maudlin at 7:36 AM on July 4


Don't worry, fffm, I wasn't suggesting dumping any of your favourite subway stations.

My closest station is (heh) Queen now, I was just pointing out and kind of supporting your argument that comparatively low ridership at a station is sometimes a necessary thing.

We still have that $3 billion under-funding problem, state of good repair is a misty memory

Not for long. Again, see Wynne's Speech from the Throne yesterday. She is throwing billions and billions and billions at transit infrastructure, much of it within GTHA.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:35 AM on July 4


The problem with stations like Lawrence East, Ellesmere, Midland, and McCowan, and to a lesser extent, Kennedy, is that basically nobody who gets on or off a train is doing anything but transferring. This inflates the numbers at Kennedy; anyone going from anywhere Warden or westward to anywhere Lawrence East or eastward counts as a passenger at Kennedy.

Having recently traveled repeatedly through Lawrence East, I can tell you that of the thousand or so people I saw get on or off trains or buses, maybe a dozen actually walked through the station entrance to do so. The station's location is such that it will never attract local ridership, and basically only has high boarding/alighting numbers because it's a transfer point for which there is no other choice.

It's like a smaller version of Mirabel: if you force people to travel over a particular route, they will, but that doesn't mean it's a good option. I don't know why public transport infrastructure in Canada tends to follow a BANANA model, but it keeps happening.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:38 AM on July 4


BANANA model?

The thing I've been curious about in all this, and maybe I've just been misreading maps, is why the everloving fuck is there not a station--even a terminal station--at UTSC?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:40 AM on July 4


There's so much that could have been done better from the start in Toronto transit planning. But one big problem that we face when it comes to transit or anything else in this city is that we have so many shitty, shitty councillors. One major reason for the delay and disarray around Transit City was that the cowards stupidly went along with Ford's decision to "cancel" even though he didn't have the power. (Yeah, the province played its part in this mess, too.)

Ford is toast in the polls right now. I only want him to stay in the race because he's drawing votes from Tory. But the city would probably be OK either Tory or Chow as mayor. (I think Soknacki and Goldkind have better policies, but I don't expect any Nenshiesque wins from either.)

Our weak mayor system will allow us to survive almost any mayor as long as we have a lot of good people on council. Mammolitti, Nunziata, and several other incumbents can and should be replaced. If you live in this city and you can vote, take a good, hard look at the slate of candidates in your ward. Donate or volunteer to help your choice.
posted by maudlin at 9:09 AM on July 4


Speaking of gems: from maudlin's "toast" link above (threehundredeight.com)--
Even Ford's 'rehab' won't save him. Asked again if Torontonians would vote for Ford if he stays clean and sober (which only 26% think he will over the next three months), still 67% will not vote for him. He has alienated two-thirds of the electorate, and that will sink him. Ford may have his fans, but his boosters do not love him as much as the rest of the city is sick of him.
It goes on to say that Tory's best numbers come up if Ford drops out of the race, which gives Tory a razor-thin lead over Chow. I think the one thing that Ford Nation diehards and shirtless joggers alike can agree on is that unless RoFo is in jail or in the grave on October 27, he will be on the ballot.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 9:19 AM on July 4


Happily I'm in Wong-Tam's ward.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:22 AM on July 4


(oh also I can't remember who I made the $5 bet with, but I guess the clock started ticking yesterday)

Tick-tock, tick-tock!
posted by Theta States at 1:41 PM on July 4 [1 favorite]


Complicating the bet: Ford has a minder. According to this article:
... over the past decade, [sober companions] have emerged as an alternative to the traditional rehabs or as an extension to conventional treatment. For chronic relapsers, high-profile patients, or addicts with money to burn, they function as a stopgap between rehab and real life. Their tasks range from the mundane (gently reminding a client to attend a meeting in the morning) to the explosive (chaining a padlock on the bedroom door to keep the client from going on a run.) Most people struggling with substance abuse find it most difficult to stay sober when they're alone. For a fee, some people can buy themselves constant company. The company doesn’t come cheap, however. While some sober companions will work pro bono on certain cases, they generally charge between $750 and $1000 a day for their services. Fees for the most prestigious sober coaches (and the most demanding clients) can top $80,000 a month. In return , sober companion accompany their clients anywhere—to parties, work functions, business trips, or just through a typical day, encouraging them in their sobriety and helping them stay clean in a world rife with temptation. ...

Unfortunately sober coaches can become as much of a crutch for some clients as the drinking and drugging once was. The onus is on the companion to maintain healthy boundaries and an appropriate degree of professionalism—a dangerous position, given how many hustlers there are in the game. Schrank notes that the business isn’t regulated in any way: “There are no professional associations or standards of practice,” he says. "So you have a lot of charlatans in this game."
posted by maudlin at 1:53 PM on July 4


BANANA model?

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. It's NIMBY to the nth degree.
posted by psoas at 6:48 AM on July 6


His Worship has explained carefully that it was the drugs and alcohol that made him say all those terrible things and demonstrate racist, sexist and homophobic behavior. Now that he is sober, he is a changed man. Or not.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:37 AM on July 9


« Older How much separates ADHD drugs from street meth? No...  |  "The slickness, the cosiness, ... Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.