rbt
Senior Member
Council, including Tory, earlier this year voted that none of the above were important in deciding transit priorities. Politics is #1, facts are #2 for deciding transit expansion priorities.
|
|
|
Council, including Tory, earlier this year voted that none of the above were important in deciding transit priorities. Politics is #1, facts are #2 for deciding transit expansion priorities.
micheal_can
Senior Member
pman
Senior Member
rbt
Senior Member
Well, yeah, but it's still fascinating that it was made official policy rather than just something that happens.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
"Facts" is just a short way of saying "the subset of the facts that supports my side of this issue", for the side that has lost the debate. You can just as easily point to a bunch of facts that support building the subway instead of the LRT. That vote was for a meaningless motion that wouldn't have changed anything - it was just the anti-subway councillors' latest way of beating the dead horse.
The debate between extending the subway and rebuilding the SRT is over. If the anti-subway people are serious they'll abandon their SRT rebuild proposal and come up with something more appealing - in other words, something that actually improves some aspect of transit service for a significant number of people. The proposed alternative LRT doesn't do that for anyone except Centennial College students who take the SRT to get there.
You know what might actually appeal to people? Propose an LRT that goes all the way to Finch & Morningside. That way you can tell people that your alternative still eliminates one of the two transfers for a huge number of passengers.
Last edited:
OneCity
Senior Member
They could have voted yes to an LRT plan that still picked up Centennial College and got rid of the main bone of contention here which is the poorly placed transfer. But lets be honest the 'Fact" is they are a one trick pony show and only know how to vote NO and cause chaos for any plan aside from what they want.
Pretty sad at this stage in the debate they keep loudly trumpeting a plan that has been rejected yet really only required slight improvement
Last edited:
Cobra
Senior Member
Like I posted on the Sheppard thread:
Development appears to be central to John Tory’s transit plans: Keenan
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/03/13/development-appears-to-be-central-to-john-torys-transit-plans-keenan.html
The case for the Scarborough subway extension: Keenan
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-the-scarborough-subway-extension-keenan.html
Tory has a "development approach to transit"... (most of the cases aside from ego). Contrarily to Ford, he's better at using that point to make his case. Unless the LRT side can prove that LRT can bring the same type of growth and investment instead of using the "cheaper" and "more stop" argument, they will keep losing. I expect Sheppard debates to use the same arguments.
Development appears to be central to John Tory’s transit plans: Keenan
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/03/13/development-appears-to-be-central-to-john-torys-transit-plans-keenan.html
The case for the Scarborough subway extension: Keenan
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-the-scarborough-subway-extension-keenan.html
Tory has a "development approach to transit"... (most of the cases aside from ego). Contrarily to Ford, he's better at using that point to make his case. Unless the LRT side can prove that LRT can bring the same type of growth and investment instead of using the "cheaper" and "more stop" argument, they will keep losing. I expect Sheppard debates to use the same arguments.
OneCity
Senior Member
Both are needed and the refusal to integrate both plans is why we're still here. Anyhow its much easier to add the local network in the future, Scarborough will never see another chance to integrate its Core
Last edited:
lead82
Senior Member
I have a suspicion that the Eglinton East LRT will be funded in this years Fed budget. If it does then Tory can say the package solution for Scarborough is a done deal: SmartTrack(funded), subway funded (needs cost controls), and LRT. That would be a big win for Tory.
If the Federal government also finds Relief line that would be icing. Or maybe I'm just dreaming.
If the Federal government also finds Relief line that would be icing. Or maybe I'm just dreaming.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
The federal government never funds specific local projects in its budget. They might announce some new big infrastructure fund and use that for Eglinton East, but that's about it.
OneCity
Senior Member
DRL is 50% funded by the Feds once "shovel ready" under the new program
I agree Tory needs to secure Eglinton funds, the Liberals are a part of this subway as well and Id be shocked if they let him down. The were also out in Scarborough on Monday with him to talk subways. I wouldn't be shocked to see some announcement for the DRL as Tory also needs to ensure everyone is onboard to move forward. As his campaign will be about action instead of further debates. Which any Left candidate or Ford will want.
salsa
Senior Member
Yes you're probably dreaming. But on a side note, this tweet from earlier today confirms exactly what I was worried is possible. This is not what council signed up for when they explicitly instructed that the subway cost was not to divert money from other projects.
Attachments
micheal_can
Senior Member
The 3 levels of government needs to stop "committing" to multiple future projects and just commit to the ones that will start now.
So, unless it is being built at the same time, that money should not even be thought of.
If they are building the STC extension at the same time they build the DRL at the same time as the CT LRT extension, then, yes it should be costed out.
It is stupid to say that they have funded aa project that wil not have shovels in the groun for 5+ years. All costs will have skyrocketed by then.
So, unless it is being built at the same time, that money should not even be thought of.
If they are building the STC extension at the same time they build the DRL at the same time as the CT LRT extension, then, yes it should be costed out.
It is stupid to say that they have funded aa project that wil not have shovels in the groun for 5+ years. All costs will have skyrocketed by then.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Actually, we should be planning for a staggered building of projects. Plan for the next project while building the current project. There should be no breaks, but continuously building and expanding public transit in the GTA.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Not saying we shouldn't plan, but the problem is, if a project has been "fully funded" yet will not be started for years, then, no, it is not fully funded.