[Second_in_pie]

I do appreciate some of what Keith was saying above about letting the SELRT get built. It's a huge test for the TTC, the City and Metrolinx. If they bungle the operation of it than it's pretty much the death knell for any future surface-level LRT routes in this city.

I'm just wondering why it has to be on Sheppard? I'd support the project 100% if the real prototype for TC was the Finch West LRT, or one on Lawrence or Kingston Road.

Skirting around the issue of whether it should actually be built or not, there's obviously some disagreement over what should be built. And the Sheppard subway's already there. So why can't we build LRT on a route that we all know will benefit most from LRT, and where LRT would be best demonstrated? Sheppard should be getting a giant review to see what should actually be done. I think that it'll overwhelmingly point towards subway, but that's not the point. The point is that Finch West should be the test for LRT, and should be the one being built.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Miller ran on the platform of cancelling the bridge. It got him elected. So he did it.

Any candidate who runs on the platform of canceling LRT lines under construction will be branded as anti-transit.

The first line is all that matters to me. If a candidate runs on a platform of cancelling TC and gets elected than he/she has a mandate to proceed with that regardless of what's funded, started, whatever.

The second line shows your though process that LRT is the only transit and anything else is not transit. One could cancel TC and propose other modes of transit but because it's not LRT, by your logic they will still be anti transit.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I'm just wondering why it has to be on Sheppard? I'd support the project 100% if the real prototype for TC was the Finch West LRT, or one on Lawrence or Kingston Road.

Skirting around the issue of whether it should actually be built or not, there's obviously some disagreement over what should be built. And the Sheppard subway's already there. So why can't we build LRT on a route that we all know will benefit most from LRT, and where LRT would be best demonstrated? Sheppard should be getting a giant review to see what should actually be done. I think that it'll overwhelmingly point towards subway, but that's not the point. The point is that Finch West should be the test for LRT, and should be the one being built.

Realistically, a Sheppard subway extension is not in the cards for the immediate future regardless. You may be able to push the ridership numbers to show subway-level demand, but is there a good business case for extending the line? Is travel along Sheppard so bad right now that a subway extension is absolutely critical?

It's not really something any politician would want to pin his star too, given the line's troubled reputation. (And, yes yes, I know, it's got great ridership compared to Chicago! It would be better if it had been finished!) The Sheppard LRT is an attempt to provide higher order transit service along this corridor and move on to other, more pressing, transit needs in the city.

People talk about Transit City being a political plan that's motivated by things other than ridership needs, but it's got nothing on the Sheppard subway and Mel Lastman's "A Subway in North York!" campaign when it comes to political baggage.

 

[kEiThZ]

yet Pantalone is ahead of three platforms that are different from Miller. Interesting!

And he's behind one that's somewhat different (Smitherman: trading LRT for subway to STC) and one that has not announced a transit plan (Ford). Interesting!

 

[GraphicMatt]

The first line is all that matters to me. If a candidate runs on a platform of cancelling TC and gets elected than he/she has a mandate to proceed with that regardless of what's funded, started, whatever.

The second line shows your though process that LRT is the only transit and anything else is not transit. One could cancel TC and propose other modes of transit but because it's not LRT, by your logic they will still be anti transit.

My personal belief is totally irrelvant here. The facts are these:

1) The public overwhelmingly supports transit expansion
2) The public still doesn't really have a firm grasp on what "Transit City" entails, and probably never will because transit nerd stuff doesn't really interest a lot of people.
3) The public does know, however, thanks to some political maneuvering as of late that Transit City represents expanded transit that will happen in the near-term.
4) Anyone running against TC lines already under construction will come off as anti-transit.

The only way a candidate could still come off as pro-transit while trashing the Transit City lines would be to come out with a very detailed proposal for an alternative plan that is deemed realistic and workable. This is very difficult - if not impossible - to do.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Realistically, a Sheppard subway extension is not in the cards for the immediate future regardless. You may be able to push the ridership numbers to show subway-level demand, but is there a good business case for extending the line? Is travel along Sheppard so bad right now that a subway extension is absolutely critical?

It's not really something any politician would want to pin his star too, given the line's troubled reputation. (And, yes yes, I know, it's got great ridership compared to Chicago! It would be better if it had been finished!) The Sheppard LRT is an attempt to provide higher order transit service along this corridor and move on to other, more pressing, transit needs in the city.

But if it doesn't have capacity concerns, why bother with it? Finch West has serious crowding issues. Sheppard East doesn't and probably never will past the point that the subway would be extended to. Finch West could really use what LRT has to offer, it was in the TC plan, and it would be a much better exhibition for the city to show how LRT works, and also test to see the best way of building it (hopefully building it with quality like they do everywhere else in the world rather than the cheap shit that's happening with TC.)

Would it be easier to just switch over all the Sheppard funds to Finch instead, or add a bit of money so they can build it, so they don't have to pay to terminate the contractors? If a candidate could do that, just do an Eglinton subway from Jane to Don Mills, and put the B-D to STC, they'd have done a wonderful job in my opinion.

 

[GraphicMatt]

And he's behind one that's somewhat different (Smitherman: trading LRT for subway to STC) and one that has not announced a transit plan (Ford). Interesting!

It's not like Pantalone had any momentum to begin with. Plus, this election is turning out to be not-so-much about transit and more about a bunch of candidates debating who's-the-best-fiscal-conservative.

Pantalone is doing better than many expected. His challenges are related to his personality and lack of public speaking ability moreso than any of his policies.

 

[kEiThZ]

Except nobody has to run on a proposal of cancelling Transit City.

Look at Thomson or Rossi or even Ford. They aren't having much of Transit City and not one of them got branded as anti-Transit.

Even on here, Thomson's been called many things for example. But nowhere has been branded as anti-transit. And she's pledging to finish the Sheppard subway....which obviously entails cancelling at least a portion of the SELRT. Rossi is sellng his vision as "Transit City Plus" and it actually would be pretty far from Miller's Transit City vision.

I have agreed in the past that the public now associates the Transit City brand with transit expansion. But that does not mean candidates have to back it entirely. The current crop is proving that. Just give a nod to TC and move on. A simple statement like, "We support Transit City but we think there are some improvements we can make to the plan." is all that's needed to completely shield a candidate from accusations of being anti-Transit, even if they are anti-Transit City.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not like Pantalone had any momentum to begin with. Plus, this election is turning out to be not-so-much about transit and more about a bunch of candidates debating who's-the-best-fiscal-conservative.

Pantalone is doing better than many expected. His challenges are related to his personality and lack of public speaking ability moreso than any of his policies.

Isn't that a bit of a cop-out argument (not saying you are ducking it, but those of his supporters that make this argument)? If Transit City is really as popular and commands as much public support as some claim, then naturally he would be getting more support and candidates who don't explicitly pledge to support TC would be doing worse. If the plan was that popular, a monkey could run with it and win.

The reality is that the public wants better transit. That in no way, shape or form means that they endorse Transit City (at this this time anyway). Pantalone's standing is proof of it.....or at least it appears that support Transit City is so insepid that it can't overcome Pantalone's lack of charm.

 

[Justin10000]

Don't skirt the issue. If the Island airport bridge could be canceled than who's to say that the next mayor couldn't cancel parts of, or the whole, TC plan? Hmmm? Since you support the continuation of plans that "are funded and approved" than you must have been against the cancelation of the Island bridge, is that not a logical conclusion.

You don't get it. The next mayor is going to have to deal with Metrolinx, if they want to have any chance of cancelling the projects. Metrolinx has not shown to be very responsive to any objections to their plan, have they? No. Miller never had to deal with a provincial agency to cancel the project, did he? He had public opinion behind his side, and the bridge still needed federal approval. Cancelling the bridge was a cake-walk. Cancelling the funded parts of TC wil not be.

 

[Mapleson]

You don't get it. The next mayor is going to have to deal with Metrolinx, if they want to have any chance of cancelling the projects. Metrolinx has not shown to be very responsive to any objections to their plan, have they? No. Miller never had to deal with a provincial agency to cancel the project, did he? He had public opinion behind his side, and the bridge still needed federal approval. Cancelling the bridge was a cake-walk. Cancelling the funded parts of TC wil not be.

City Council has already approved most of Transit City. Eglinton LRT was approved last year. Sheppard East LRT started works last year. Finch West LRT EA was approved by Council at the end of January. That leaves Scarborough RT. If TTC pulls out their share of funding, don't expect the rest of the money to be spent by Metrolinx on the TTC. If Toronto doesn't want LRT, Hamilton does.

 

[kEiThZ]

You don't get it. The next mayor is going to have to deal with Metrolinx, if they want to have any chance of cancelling the projects. Metrolinx has not shown to be very responsive to any objections to their plan, have they? No. Miller never had to deal with a provincial agency to cancel the project, did he? He had public opinion behind his side, and the bridge still needed federal approval. Cancelling the bridge was a cake-walk. Cancelling the funded parts of TC wil not be.

Cancelling the bridge involved far more intractable agencies then Metrolinx. You are presuming that Metrolinx is absolutely wedded to Transit City. We don't really know that. They are working with the plan now because the current city administration favours it. But there's no evidence that they aren't willing to negotiate and change tracks. Aside from that, Metrolinx takes its marching orders from Queen's Park. Do you really think that Queen's Park would not be receptive to the concerns of a new mayor (particularly one they consider friendly to their interests). The reality is that transit has always involved input from the province. Metrolinx is just a new form of that interaction.

Again, I cite the Ottawa precedence. They cancelled a project already under way. And came out of it with successful negotiations with the feds and the province.

Now I am not advocating cancellation of the SELRT. But I would suggest that modification or cancellation is most definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Metrolinx takes its marching orders from Queen's Park. Do you really think that Queen's Park would not be receptive to the concerns of a new mayor (particularly one they consider friendly to their interests).

Dalton could always say, 'hey new Toronto City Council, you decide what to do and we'll just fund it.' And in that case, TC would continue to receive heavy support and would not be altered

 

[Second_in_pie]

In fact, wasn't Metrolinx the one fighting for Eglinton to be grade separated? All that Metrolinx did was consolidate all of the municipal transit plans taken from the MO2020 moneybag. There's no regional planning there at all. That's why I'd actually like construction on all these things to pause so Metrolinx can act like a real transit coordinator and figure out what exactly needs to be built.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

There's no regional planning there at all. That's why I'd actually like construction on all these things to pause so Metrolinx can act like a real transit coordinator and figure out what exactly needs to be built.

Unfortunately, it won't happen