AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Anyways, let's get back to SSE. No matter where you stand in this debate and even though there is blame to be assigned in this fracas, the current outcome is not great for actual users of transit.
AoD
AoD
|
|
|
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
If RFQ's counted for anything, the SELRT would've been operational five years ago
MisterF
Senior Member
The fact that a rapid transit line is going to close only 38 years after it opened, to be replaced with buses for 7 years before a replacement line opens, is just mind blowing. Something is fundamentally wrong with transit planning in this city.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
This happens when the powers-that-be (current and former Councillors, former Mayor, MPPs, current Premier, and bureaucrats) make decisions on public transit, but have little or no experience in even using public transit.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
We got here through a calvacade of tragedies:
1. Back in the 80s, there was a railway corridor available that could've linked Kennedy to STC via subway, and it could've been built almost entirely on the surface. For some reason we decided to build an LRT
2. Instead of moving forward with the cheap and reliable LRT, the Province forced the City to use untested, unreliable and very expensive ICTS.
3. The railway corridor that could've been used for a Line 2 extension was sold to home owners for backyard extensions for literally fractions of pennies on the dollar. Had that not been done, the current SSE proposal would've been relatively cheap and easy.
4. Then there's transit city and the subsequent cancellations that we're all familiar with
I'm just perplexed at how bad we are at this. It's as if we're doing everything in our power to prevent ourselves from building transit effectively.
afransen
Senior Member
PRT system? Haven't heard about this.
toronto647
Active Member
Ford and his nephew do not have any feuds from my understanding.^So Toronto-Ontario disputes will take on the nature of a Ford family feud? I can't bloody wait for that
Amare
Senior Member
We live in a city/province that continuously self-sabotages itself with regards to transit. Instead of taking the easy way out of things, it's like politicians continuously find ways for us to pay at the very minimum, a 100% premium while simultaneously getting less in return.
Imagine if they were in charge of your personal finances. They would somehow find a way to drain your portfolio by 100% year over year, while the markets on average would be up 10% annually.
toronto647
Active Member
Not sure if you live under a rock my friend. Ford's transit plans are moving faster than any premiers in recent history. 3/4 of his proposals are almost ready to be signed on the dotted lines and shovels in the ground. (not a Ford support but gotta give the man kudos - he will get my vote next election)
kamira51
Active Member
Honestly, this was such huge mistake and I blam this situation on it, because if it was built, we wouldn't have this crapshow.
syn
Senior Member
I would say the problems with this project reflect problems at every level - federal, provincial and municipal.
That said, a return to a Metro form of municipal government and less provincial interference in planning would yield better results.
We wisely have a separation of church and state - there should also be some level of separation between transit planning and state.
That said, a return to a Metro form of municipal government and less provincial interference in planning would yield better results.
We wisely have a separation of church and state - there should also be some level of separation between transit planning and state.
sixrings
Senior Member
It’s true. I am living under a rock. Between going in circles with onecity and coffey1 I gave up coming here. Then with COVID I got depressed and stopped watching the news. But Ford Ford he’s our man. If he can’t do it no one can. I guess this thread has become bizarro world too. Peace.
syn
Senior Member
Glad you're back.
I think Ford's most advanced 'transit plans' are continuations of existing plans. The one most needed was scrapped and replaced with one that has already been delayed.
To be honest it seems like the usual routine. There are always plans ready to be signed on the dotted line.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
When Metro initially opted to build an LRT over the surface subway to connect STC to Kennedy, it was due to cost savings. Personally I would have favoured the more expensive surface subway, but the LRT plan was justifiable. It did save some money and the route wouldn't have generated necessarily generated subway-level usage.
However, once the Province forced the City to use ICTS, costs shot up so much that it would've been more economical to have just built the full blown surface subway in the first place. We thus ended up with the most expensive and least optimal (forced transfer) plan.
This just speaks to how the municipal and Provincial government interfering with each other make it impossible to generate and implement any kind of comprehensive and holistic transit plan. We just end up with bits and pieces of whatever the government of the day managed to implement.
We see a similar fiasco today with the Eglinton Crosstown and the Crosstown West extension: Light rail vehicles make perfect sense for the Crosstown if the route operates on the surface for a significant portion of its route. That was the initial vision with the Crosstown LRT. But due to various levels of government yet again changing their minds (Crosstown West is now underground), we end up stuck with the sub-optimal, yet very expensive implementation of running relatively low capacity LRVs, designed for street usage, that'll remain underground for nearly the entire route. It makes no sense.
Heck, going further back, we see the same issues created the Sheppard Subway + SELRT plan.
Building a transit network takes time, care and commitment. It's a multi-decade process that requires sticking to the vision in order to implement an optimal solution. The lack of care and commitment we've seen the City and Province results in us being stuck with suboptimal Frankenstein-like creations, such as the Eglinton Crosstown and the SRT.
Last edited:
JSF-1
Active Member
To answer this question I believe it was because Scarborough didn't want to foot the bill for the extension (or at least the largest portion of the municipal portion of fudning) although I can't for certain say if that is true or not. I do believe though that Scarborough council as far back as 1973 looked at the Subway extension to the planned Scarborough Town Centre and decided LRT was better due to the lower cost involved. I would really like to see a funding breakdown of projects from back in the day because while I can't say for certain, I am under the impression that funding for the municipal portion of funding was spread across the 6 municipalities with the cities that benefit the most from a project incurring the heaviest burden. I only say this because why would Scarborough balk at the cost of a Subway extension unless they were going to bare the brunt of the funding since the extension existed entirely in Scarborough. I guess this would have also been a reason the Etobicoke RT became a thing since if that was part of the overall plan as well then Scarborough wouldn't be along in funding and Etobicoke would also be involved. This may also be why all plans form back then were part of some much larger multi-jurisdictional schemes sincie instead of focusing on one municpalitie at the time, why not instead spread the load equally across all 6 over a span of say 30 years i.e. Network 2011. I cannot say this is for certain though but the decision to go with an LRT (or High-Speed Streetcar) as it was known back then wasn't just a Metro decision; Scarborough Council agreed as well.
Last edited: