Thursday’s Headlines

5 comments

1. While I find Dr. Hulchanski’s compilation of data on poverty to be of real service, I have to disagree with his linking public transit and poverty. I don’t suggest that it is not an issue, just that it is not the pertinent issue in Toronto. The problem is the number of jobs and the location of them. While their is no doubt that the loss of manufacturing jobs has hurt the city, this phenomenon started well before the recent surge in off-shoring, the impact of the high CAN$ and the recession.

   To put it another way, even if the factors that are effecting manufacturing employment were to be removed and reversed, Toronto would still not see growth in the sector. Just like we we saw from What would happen is that the trend that started in 1989, of job growth increasing rapidly in the 905 region, would resume. As such public transportation in the suburbs feeding the core would only be useful to a handful of those residents. The money dedicated for it would be better spent elsewhere.

2. Oh, Glen, shut it!  You did not spend three years studying the effects of transportation, services, etc like Dr Hulchanski did. Once you release a study vetted by academic colleagues — and not spout armchair theories — then keep your misinformed analysis to yourself. 

3. LIISA,

   Perhaps you could explain why Toronto most precipitous drop occurred between 1990 and 2000, when the city lost 38% of its middle class. Compare that to the decline in the 905 region of 11%. Was globalization only occurring in Toronto? Before offering any of your excuses (NAFATA, Harris etc,) , have a look at GDP growth, exports, industrial production, and productivity during the period. You can find most of the data at http://www.tradingeconomics.com.
   How do you explain the fact that between 1991 and 2001 the number of Toronto residents that traveled outside the city for employment increased by 80,000. If these Torontonians were not able to have found employment in the 905 region then the poverty levels in Toronto would have increased even more. During that decade the city lost 50,000 jobs while the 905 region gained 400,000.

   I am willing to explore this issue with you here, if you are able to drop the credentialism and think for yourself.

   Please provide any support for the notion that Transit City (as suggested by Hulchanski) or any other increase in PT in the suburbs is going to be an effective means to reduce poverty.

4. Glen,

   First, you would love my Geography/Urban Studies prof’s lecture on Hulchanski’s findings. While he generally agrees with the conclusions, he is very critical about his methods and reasons behind them.

   http://www.yorku.ca/anderson/geog1410%20fw10-11/three%20cities_files/frame.htm

   Second, while Transit City has many issues, I wouldn’t write off public transit altogether. There are a number of bus routes which operate between inner-suburban residential and outer-suburban business parks (ex: YRT Leslie South, TTC Keele North, etc). Unfortunately, most of these routes operate fairly infrequently, including during the rush hour.

   Fortunately, things do appear to be changing. The subway extension to Vaughan will improve access to jobs for those in northwest Toronto, and bus service in the outer suburbs continues to improve each year.

5. Thanks for posting that Ben. Slides 29 and 30 reiterate what I have said here. Perhaps LIISA will accord them consideration, now that someone with credentials has raised them.

   PS. I did not write off public transportation. What I suggested was that in Toronto’s case, it was not the issue. Nor the solution given other factors. There is no evidence provided by Hulchanski that it is either.