[Dan416]

People, it's Thomson, not Thompson. I find it really annoying when people manage to misspell my last name (which is 4 letters). And Thomson isn't exactly hard to spell. That and "Thomson" and "Thompson" sound different when you say them. So your reading comprehension is either poor, or you have no attention to detail.

On topic though, the hypocrisy of LRTistas knows no bounds, so no one should be surprised that their arguments are not internally consistent, or consistent at all. Actually, they're 100% consistent with an LRT-at-all-costs philosophy.

 

[adma]

And whenever I see "Thompson", I think of councillor Mike T., who was long rumoured to be considering a mayoral run (and who, versus the present slate of candidates, might indeed have won)

 

[nfitz]

He may not have given a cost during the election, you are correct. In that case, it's even worse. When City Council first approved Transit City, its pricetag was $8 billion. Before a single shovel had hit the ground, the cost of the project had nearly doubled.

If you look at the reasons it's increased, is that much of the increase is that Metrolinx is now used escalated dollars in it's cash flows, instead of the 2007 dollars from the beginning of the debate. And secondly because they did all seem to estimate the cost of tunnelling the 11 km of the Eglinton line (as well as the portions of Jane and Don Mills) where the cost isn't that different than subway.

The reason that Thomson should be skewered is that she is STILL using numbers that are grossly wrong. There is no excuse for that other than being lazy. The numbers were wrong the day she came out with them, and I pointed it out the very day. They have become more dated, and still no corrections.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not sure I recall him ever giving us a cost; just that LRT was cheaper than subway. Do you have an example?

So you supported a candidate who committed to something without even looking at the price tag on the mere assumption that another level of government would pay for it?

Personally, I strongly suspect that Miller's accounting is exactly the reason TC got chopped up. It's quite likely the province thought TC would be cheaper too. And once the costs started to balloon, they had to scale back the projects.

 

[kEiThZ]

The reason that Thomson should be skewered is that she is STILL using numbers that are grossly wrong. There is no excuse for that other than being lazy. The numbers were wrong the day she came out with them, and I pointed it out the very day. They have become more dated, and still no corrections.

Candidates have more than one issue to address. Too bad she didn't run off as soon as you emailed her and dropped everything and fixed her subway plan.

Being 15% off in my books is eminently better than promising to build a bunch of lines with no price tag and a pledge that somebody else is going to pay for it. Would that all the candidates had the temerity to make such commitments this time around.

 

[nfitz]

So you supported a candidate who committed to something without even looking at the price tag on the mere assumption that another level of government would pay for it?

No candidate challenged him on it; and the other candidate with a transit plan also made the same assumption about funding sources.

And besides, they were correct ... Ontario indicated they will fund all 7 lines in either the 15 or 25 year timeframe - along with the Spadina extension, Yonge extension, DRL, and SRT extension and conversion.

Candidates have more than one issue to address. Too bad she didn't run off as soon as you emailed her and dropped everything and fixed her subway plan.

It's been months now ... and very little policy has come out of her on other issues. Heck, I don't see any new content on her website in about a month. Perhaps she isn't going to run any more?

 

[kEiThZ]

No candidate challenged him on it; and the other candidate with a transit plan also made the same assumption about funding sources.

So that makes it alright?

And besides, they were correct ... Ontario indicated they will fund all 7 lines in either the 15 or 25 year timeframe - along with the Spadina extension, Yonge extension, DRL, and SRT extension and conversion.

During the campaign?

We are talking about the campaign here. Queen's Park had not committed to anything at that point. Heck, Dalton had barely been in office for a month and a half before Miller became Mayor. So how did Miller know McGuinty was going to fund his LRT platform?

It is unfortunate that the other candidates didn't call him out on this.

It's been months now ... and very little policy has come out of her on other issues. Heck, I don't see any new content on her website in about a month. Perhaps she isn't going to run any more?

She's a little more than a one-woman show from what I hear. She's got a few volunteers and nowhere near the staff and support as the other candidates. I'm impressed that she even has a website.

Anyway, she'll do well. There's really only a handful of real prickly people who'd quibble over 10% on her subway plan, while the incumbent's banner waver is pushing a plan that's already doubled in cost, the front runner has equal or bigger holes in his plan and the guy in second has not released a transit plan at all.

She won't be losing sleep over your vote. You were destined to vote Pantalone anyway.

 

[Mapleson]

People, it's Thomson, not Thompson. I find it really annoying when people manage to misspell my last name (which is 4 letters). And Thomson isn't exactly hard to spell. That and "Thomson" and "Thompson" sound different when you say them. So your reading comprehension is either poor, or you have no attention to detail.

Excuse me for being human. Actually, Thomson is hard to spell as it's an atypical spelling. Just like Phillips is hard to spell because you can’t tell if it’s one L or two. The P in Thompson is typically abridged as “mps” isn’t a typical letter combination in English, unless you are putting a distinct stress on the P.

Candidates have more than one issue to address. Too bad she didn't run off as soon as you emailed her and dropped everything and fixed her subway plan.

There is a difference between expecting immediate and complete response and expecting any response after 6 months. She published her numbers in January; it is now June.

Being 15% off in my books is eminently better than promising to build a bunch of lines with no price tag and a pledge that somebody else is going to pay for it. Would that all the candidates had the temerity to make such commitments this time around.

Again you are saying 10-15%. I suggest that her numbers are off by more than 50% with her $5 toll. Can you please illustrate where this ‘low’ margin of error is arising from?

 

[nfitz]

We are talking about the campaign here. Queen's Park had not committed to anything at that point. Heck, Dalton had barely been in office for a month and a half before Miller became Mayor. So how did Miller know McGuinty was going to fund his LRT platform?

What are you talking about. The LRT debate was in the 2006 campaign, 3 years after McGuinty became premier. I don't recall LRT or subway being a signifcant issue during the 2003 campaign - am I forgetting something (which wouldn't be unusual ...).

You were destined to vote Pantalone anyway.

Pantalone? Why ... has he got a single new idea? Heck, does he have a platform? I'm not voting for someone who doesn't even have a position other than doing the status quo.

 

[kEiThZ]

What are you talking about. The LRT debate was in the 2006 campaign, 3 years after McGuinty became premier. I don't recall LRT or subway being a signifcant issue during the 2003 campaign - am I forgetting something (which wouldn't be unusual ...).

So he had no transit platform in 2003?

But again, as per my perception of the evolution of TC. I seem to recall it was first pitched as a way for the city to build transit on its own, without necessarily relying on the province's dole. The province only jumped in later with funding. I distinctly remember the original pitch being that it was a plan that could be funded and developed solely by the City if necessary since it lent itself to modular/phased construction in digestible chunks. Perhaps, I am wrong in my recollection?

And at that time, I honestly did it support it. At $6 billion, it made a lot of sense. It was something that the city could build on its own. And $6 billion wouldn't buy you that much subway.

My opinion only changed as the price tag of the lines ballooned and it became fairly obvious that the overall price tag of Transit City would allow for substantial expansion of the subway network. I do think Miller was being sneaky and deceptive on this. Either that, or he just hired incompetent staff who really can't give him even a decent ROME (rough order of magnitude estimate).

 

[kEiThZ]

There is a difference between expecting immediate and complete response and expecting any response after 6 months. She published her numbers in January; it is now June.

Fair enough. She should update them. Why don't you email her and ask for updated numbers?

Again you are saying 10-15%. I suggest that her numbers are off by more than 50% with her $5 toll. Can you please illustrate where this ‘low’ margin of error is arising from?

nfitz raised the point about per km construction rates.

As for overall pricing being off, I really don't see her being better or worse than the rest of the bunch. The reality is that they are all looking for provincial cash to pay for their transit plans. The only difference is that some of them might be willing to pony up a higher share from Toronto.

 

[rbt]

So he had no transit platform in 2003?

IIRC, he pledged to implement the ridership growth strategy in his 2003 campaign.

This included, primarily improving bus service, implementing maximum headways on most routes, all day service again, BRT to York U, and BRT on Yonge. Also included, indirectly (TTC staff tacked it onto RGS), the Spadina line extension which is also underway.

 

[SlickFranky]

On topic though, the hypocrisy of LRTistas knows no bounds, so no one should be surprised that their arguments are not internally consistent, or consistent at all.

I'm getting a little tired of this LRTista term. Who are the LRTista's on this board? I don't think anyone on here is solely in support of LRT, or is dumbstruck by how AMAZING LRT is, or gets a semi at the mere mention of surface rail. The most prominent TC supporters are nothing like that, and openly support BRT, subway and regional rail where appropriate. If you're going to continue to use this term, you might as well join Fresh Start and start calling us elitists and/or commies.

 

[Rainforest]

I seem to recall it was first pitched as a way for the city to build transit on its own, without necessarily relying on the province's dole. The province only jumped in later with funding. I distinctly remember the original pitch being that it was a plan that could be funded and developed solely by the City if necessary since it lent itself to modular/phased construction in digestible chunks. Perhaps, I am wrong in my recollection?

Transit City was promoted as something much more affordable than subway; but there was no specific plans as how the City can afford it on its own budget. In fact, the first document describing TC had a statement that "currently, there is no funding for this project".

My opinion only changed as the price tag of the lines ballooned and it became fairly obvious that the overall price tag of Transit City would allow for substantial expansion of the subway network. I do think Miller was being sneaky and deceptive on this. Either that, or he just hired incompetent staff who really can't give him even a decent ROME (rough order of magnitude estimate).

I think that Miller's original cost projections were made in good faith, but nevertheless totally off the mark. Technical staff is the likely culprit, not Miller himself. Since the project was not funded anyway, it would not make a big difference for Miller if he announced a larger cost.

The cost escalation is enormous indeed. Eglinton alone was originally quoted at 2.2 Billion for 30 km (73 million / km), now it is 6.065 Billion for 20 km (303 million / km).

We should take into account that the latter number is in "escalated dollars". But even if we discount 25% of that cost as inflation mark-up, we would get about 225 million / km in 2010 dollars, or 3x the original quote.

 

[Asterix]

The cost escalation is enormous indeed. Eglinton alone was originally quoted at 2.2 Billion for 30 km (73 million / km), now it is 6.065 Billion for 20 km (303 million / km).

We should take into account that the latter number is in "escalated dollars". But even if we discount 25% of that cost as inflation mark-up, we would get about 225 million / km in 2010 dollars, or 3x the original quote.

Do those original costs include such fixed cost items like a car house and vehicles to run on the line?

I'm guessing they weren't in the first number but are in the second.