If you compare 8 years of PC rule - which resulted in a Sheppard line, and the 14 years of Liberal rule with a York Region Spadina extension and an Eglinton line - you have to give a strong advantage to the Liberals - by a factor of 2 or 3.
If you compare 10 years of Harper with then record amounts for transit to the 12 years of Chretien/Martin rule, you would give a very strong advantage to the Conservatives - maybe by a factor of 40 or more.
It's likely that in the mid 1990's to early 2000's, the price of oil was much lower (letting more people drive) and the 1990's recession caused transit ridership to drop and not recover even by the mid 2000's. There were concerns ridership would not recover.
It is hard to compare governments of different eras due to different conditions. What I pointed out was trying to compare goverments of the same era.
Everyone noticed that Harper led the best government in the G7 over his 10 years (best job creation, best increase in GDP, 2nd lowest increase in debt). But he added only 1% per year to jobs, increased GDP by only ~1.5% per year and raised debt by ~$130B.
If you look at Trudeau, he has added about 1.4% per year to jobs, increased GDP by ~2.4% per year and raised debt by ~$40B. But compared to G7, Trudeau is #5, #2, and #6.
If you look at raw numbers, Trudeau is better. If you compare to era, Harper is much better.
Similar to transit funding. Absolutely, the most recent leaders Wynne and Trudeau, appear best on transit, but when comparing how much better Wynne was the Harris, it is impossible to miss that Harper was an order of magnitude better than Chretien. Again, somehow comparing leaders to their era.
Another way of looking at it for hockey fans. Who is a better player; Blaine Stoughton or Evgeni Malkin. Knowing that Malkin has less 50 goal seasons.
