11-04-2025, 11:28 AM
(11-03-2025, 02:02 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: The issue isn't the data, it's the negative slant Outhit always puts on it. Like the way he cites the entire 30 year operating cost of ION in situations where most people would use the $880m construction cost. It's easy to present factual data in a way that significantly influences the reader's opinion, and he has a long history of doing it. He knows exactly what the average reader will get out of that article: Stage 1 was a failure, and Stage 2 is a complete waste of money.
This is my problem with the article as well. I actually really appreciate all the statistics and other data, but it omits statistics that are foundational to contextualize GRT's ridership since 2019 and the success or failure of ION, namely (1) has GRT ridership grown/declined more or less than other peer cities and Toronto during the same timeframe? (2) what is the mode share of transit for each peer city and has it grown/declined more or less than other peer cities during the same timeframe? It's my understanding all transit agencies suffered major ridership declines through the pandemic and I expect most/all also likely did as a result of the recent reduction in foreign students. The real question is whether GRT did better or worse relative to others considering those important factors.
Also, there are many red flags with what data is being looked and and the conclusions being drawn. As just one example, under the bolded subheading "The launch of streetcars did not reverse a decade-long transit downturn", the article goes on to explain its conclusion as follows: "Transit fell to 5.5 per cent of daily trips taken in 2016 and further dipped to 5.3 per cent in 2022-23, up to four years after rail transit launched." I appreciate more recent data may not be available, but 2022/2023 was very much the tail end of the pandemic and almost all transit patterns remained severely disrupted during that time given a huge amount of workers were still working remotely. It just seems like a very weak, and even dishonest conclusion.
And finally, the article omits all real discussion of densification. Interestingly though, there is reference to the fact that WR residents "cycle slightly more often and walk even more often" since 2016. Is this because there are more residents living in denser neighbourhoods as a result of the construction boom from ION? We don't know, but of course that isn't explored.
Basically I'm frustrated because this is such an important article and analysis, but it's just been done so poorly. If ION truly had no or negligible impact on transit usage/mode share relative to other peer cities when the effects of the pandemic are accounted for, then let's draw that conclusion and try to understand why it failed. But this article comes nowhere close to that.