Whoaccio
Senior Member
Nobody is arguing that every Westonite is a NIMBY, but going by NIMBYism (by which I assume it is meant opposition to a given project based not on complete analysis but rather perceived ill effects to local residents) there are certainly NIMBY voices in parts of the coalition.
If we look at Mike Sullivan's arguments against Blue22, there is an undeniable NIMBY streak (liberally spliced in with some Naomi Klein brand socialism):
(while pointing, literally, to back yards of bordering houses)
(also, I don't get why he thinks that giving Weston a station would eliminate the grade separation)
In all of this, I will concede that whoever has been managing Blue22 has done a bloody awful job of just about everything. I'm not opposed to the P3 nature of the project by nature, for instance, but damned if I know exactly what the benefit of this arrangement is to Toronto. The only way I even found the cost of the project was to listen to the projects nemesis. I have no clue what the financing structure of the line will be. No clue what the projected ridership is. No clue what projected revenues are. I couldn't even find an actual website for Blue22 beyond wikipedia.
If we look at Mike Sullivan's arguments against Blue22, there is an undeniable NIMBY streak (liberally spliced in with some Naomi Klein brand socialism):
(while pointing, literally, to back yards of bordering houses)
This is a textbook NIMBY argument, that local landowner's resale value and the desirability of their houses would decline. I can sympathize that I wouldn't want to live next to a rail corridor, but that is why I choose not to move in next to an active one. If, instead of a privately operated express railway catering to business clientèle, we were talking about a windmill or some other left wing poster child it wouldn't take two seconds to point out the obvious here.
To start with, I would like to point out that this is primarily about vehicle traffic, not pedestrian. I am sick of hearing about the new urbanist dreams of an entire 'town' crushed by the fat cats at SNC-Lavalin, the original proposal iirc did include pedestrian bridges across the corridor in lieu of roads. As it relates to car traffic, I am unconvinced. Assuming we create one vehicle overpass on Church St. (or just left it at grade, which I believe was conceded) that would add a maximum of 2-5 minutes of additional driving time. We all know how this forum would respond if, say, Rob Ford (the gelatinous windbag he is) proposed 2-5 minute delays as justification for maintaining the Gardiner (and at least with the Gardiner, dozens of thousands of people would suffer the delay vs. far fewer in the Weston area).
I don't know whether it is appropriate to call this NIMBYism, but it certainly doesn't pass the 100% honesty test. It is widely practiced Toronto-area ritual to basically jack the costs of any proposal so high as to render it unfeasible (see the TTC's recent list of 'conditions' to the Yonge extension). Basically, the line of reasoning here is that if the government boosts the cost of the project by several factors, we will support the project. Who knows, maybe BART/RER/CrossRail/REX/S-Bahn service along the Weston corridor may be a good idea. As an alternative to an airport link though it is a red herring. Toronto has no experience with REX construction, so I won't just guess at costs wildly. But Blue22 (if it costs 300m, like Sullivan said) has a cost/km of about 13-14m. Nobody would propose an alternative in good faith that cost more than 3x this amount. If we add use the Strachan trench project as a rough approximation, the trenching should cost ~200m. That alone would raise costs by 60 odd percent. Lord only knows how much electrification would cost.
(also, I don't get why he thinks that giving Weston a station would eliminate the grade separation)
I will admit that this isn't NIMBYism, but it is terribly applicable to the discussion either though. Public transit is not meant to be operated as a social service. This is almost always brought up in conjunction with the P3 nature of the project and the high fare. The service is meant to be a 'luxury' item, though. The TTC has never identified Weston as a very viable area for Rapid Transit. (Jane Line aside, but I think there is pretty unanimous agreement here that that line owes everything to politics as opposed to transit planning). GO is considering upgrading service from Weston to downtown, and who knows what nuttiness Metrolinx is up to. The point being, it isn't (and shouldn't be) Blue22's responsibility to serve that market. If we ever want rail travel to become viable in Toronto, we need to recognize that social concerns take a backseat to line viability. Would revenues increase by doubling or tripling the initial investment, reducing fares and boosting the operating costs? Well the simple answer is I don't know, the Blue22 team is bloody awful at telling their story. My gut feeling though is that it couldn't because if SNC lavalin thought that would be more profitable, it would do it.
In all of this, I will concede that whoever has been managing Blue22 has done a bloody awful job of just about everything. I'm not opposed to the P3 nature of the project by nature, for instance, but damned if I know exactly what the benefit of this arrangement is to Toronto. The only way I even found the cost of the project was to listen to the projects nemesis. I have no clue what the financing structure of the line will be. No clue what the projected ridership is. No clue what projected revenues are. I couldn't even find an actual website for Blue22 beyond wikipedia.
).