Earlier this afternoon, Toronto mayor Rob Ford sat down for an interview with Stephen LeDrew of CP24 (posted in four parts on the station’s website). In the interests of ensuring we are all talking about things that are based in fact, I looked into a few of the claims he made during his 16 or so minutes on the air:
The city has actually added more bike lanes recently
This claim, made by both the mayor and Stephen LeDrew over the course of the broadcast, probably references the separated bike lanes that the Mayor and Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong’s bike plan call to have constructed. As the blog Ford for Toronto outlines here, the report that was approved does recommend adding new lanes on a stretch of Bloor over the Prince Edward Viaduct. It also recommends studying the feasibility of adding lanes on Richmond and Adelaide Streets, although those lanes are not yet approved. The bulk of the construction called for in the Mayor’s bike plan is installing separated lanes on streets that already have bike lanes—including the much-talked about Sherbourne Street lanes. Meanwhile, the plan as approved removed lanes from Pharmacy and Birchmount in Scarborough, and removes the existing lanes on Jarvis. The overall plan represents a net reduction in the number of bike lanes on the street.
“Traffic was 10 times worse” on Jarvis Street after the installation of the bike lanes
Ford says that people were calling him to say that traffic was 10 times worse after the bike lanes were installed, and it is entirely possible that they were actually saying that to him. It is not, however, an accurate measure of the slowdown of traffic on Jarvis. The staff report that actually measured travel times for cars on Jarvis before and after the introduction of the lanes said that “travel time increased by approximately two minutes in both directions following the installation of the bike lanes in the a.m. peak hour and by three to five minutes in both directions in the p.m. peak hour.” For this to represent a tenfold increase in travel time, it would mean the average trip during rush hour prior to the lanes being introduced was between 20 seconds and 50 seconds 18 seconds and 30 seconds [Math correction here—EK]. In fact, the average trip previously was between six and eight minutes long prior to the introduction. After the introduction, trips still averaged between six and nine minutes, but some afternoon rush hour trips took up to 14 minutes. City Staff had said in that report that introducing advance left turn signal at Gerrard would alleviate that afternoon-rush delay.
The KPMG study “has nothing to do with cuts. It’s finding efficiencies”
This is just blatantly false. Many of us hoped that the report might find efficiencies (say, going to direct deposit instead of mailing cheques to produce a large amount of savings, or discovering that two different city departments provide exactly the same service), but it appears the reports did not even attempt to do so. Instead, the KPMG reports identify areas that the city might cut because they are not deemed absolutely essential. So, for instance, the report suggests that the city “consider reducing or eliminating the 311 development capacity” and “Consider eliminating public art program” and “consider reducing or eliminating” the Social Supports employment services program. These are not suggestions on how to provide the same services more efficiently. They are suggestions for cuts to consider.
The Toronto Atmospherice Fund costs the city $40 million
Ford mentions the Atmospheric Fund immediately after discussing grants programs, and says, “there’s $40 million there—should we be in this business?” As former budget chief and current Councillor Shelley Carroll Tweeted, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund actually operates on an endowment of $23 million (this is not an annual expense; its cost to the city now is $0 per year), and it was set up in 1992 with proceeds from a real-estate sale. It is a fund that is managed by an arms-length board of Bay Street investors. According to its own report, the TAF is “recognized locally and internationally for its innovative and effective programs,” has “invested $51 million in practical emission reduction projects citywide” and has helped the city save $55 million in energy costs.
“We’re not going to go through another garbage strike“
This is more wishful thinking than a statement of fact. The right to strike in Canada is considered a constitutionally protected right (as it is in every other large democracy in the world), and contracting out garbage collection does not take away anyone’s right to form a union, bargain collectively or go on strike. A private company contracted to pick up the city’s garbage faces the same risk of a strike as does the city itself. The city, in its contracts, includes provisions that mean the private contractor would need to somehow collect the garbage any way in the event of strike or pay a penalty. But this does not eliminate the risk of a strike. To avoid a strike, the city would need to get the province to declare garbage collection an “essential service” as it did with the TTC. Doing so would likely increase the costs of collecting garbage and would make it virtually impossible to then privatize collection. In any event, the city has not done this, and has announced no plans to do this.
