News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

robmausser said:
This has everything to do with us vs them non-bipartisan politics. Which is what Toronto has become ever since the amalgamation. The snobby uptight downtown elites vs the hard working, middle class suburbanites.
Click to expand...

I really hate to do this.....but why invent a word when a simpler word already exists....the opposite of bipartisan politics is, you know, partisan politics.....creating the new word made your sentence need multiple reads to be sure what it meant.
 
TOareaFan said:
I really hate to do this.....but why invent a word when a simpler word already exists....the opposite of bipartisan politics is, you know, partisan politics.....creating the new word made your sentence need multiple reads to be sure what it meant.
Click to expand...

I think he/she/zhe mentioned it elsewhere but it's better 'identified' as identity politics.
 
Lansdude said:
Just sent an email to Matlow's office thanking him for setting an example in the face of stupidity.
Click to expand...

he should have fought harder for elevated trains or different mode of constructions than a full reversal. He would have had more results
 
Cobra said:
he should have fought harder for elevated trains or different mode of constructions than a full reversal. He would have had more results
Click to expand...

He should have put a better alternative on the table. Like restoring the stops they cut and guaranteeing both Eglinton East and SLRT to be built simultaneously. Make Scarborough an offer it couldn't refuse.

Instead, him and all the LRT advocates tried to play the fiscal conservative card. "Let's go back to the cheaper, more effective plan.". Makes sense but here's what a lot of people hear: "They want to cheap out on me."
 
kEiThZ said:
He should have put a better alternative on the table. Like restoring the stops they cut and guaranteeing both Eglinton East and SLRT to be built simultaneously. Make Scarborough an offer it couldn't refuse.

Instead, him and all the LRT advocates tried to play the fiscal conservative card. "Let's go back to the cheaper, more effective plan.". Makes sense but here's what a lot of people hear: "They want to cheap out on me."
Click to expand...

Exactly. When playing a zero-sum game, one can only expect to lose.

The LRT advocates never took into serious consideration the compromise of having the Bloor-Danforth extended as an at-grade/above-grade subway along the path of the SRT, which would have been costwise very similar as retrofitting the SRT to accommodate LRT. It was all or nothing for them, light rail or bust.
 
LNahid2000 said:
Because extending the subway to Malvern when ridership for the next 100 years probably wouldn't come close to filling it is a waste of scarce resources.
Click to expand...

Ok say it's scaled back to Markham and Milner just like the LRT plan. I dont see it being a colossal waste in anyway. Problem solved IMO. Its what could have been proposed by the opposition and hopefully will come election time.
 
kEiThZ said:
He should have put a better alternative on the table. Like restoring the stops they cut and guaranteeing both Eglinton East and SLRT to be built simultaneously. Make Scarborough an offer it couldn't refuse.

Instead, him and all the LRT advocates tried to play the fiscal conservative card. "Let's go back to the cheaper, more effective plan.". Makes sense but here's what a lot of people hear: "They want to cheap out on me."
Click to expand...
Hopkins123 said:
Exactly. When playing a zero-sum game, one can only expect to lose.

The LRT advocates never took into serious consideration the compromise of having the Bloor-Danforth extended as an at-grade/above-grade subway along the path of the SRT, which would have been costwise very similar as retrofitting the SRT to accommodate LRT. It was all or nothing for them, light rail or bust.
Click to expand...

I don't know guys. It is easy to say this here, and I agree with the sentiment. But, I was watching city council yesterday and it was clear that council (as a whole) had next-to-no interest in discussing alternative plans.

Cllr. Ainsle put forward three motions merely tying the SSE and Crosstown East LRT together, and the speaker tried very hard to get all three motions be ruled out-of-order for being irrelevant to the item before council. Nunziata failed (after a ten minute recess and lengthy deliberation with council chamber staff) to make his 1st and 3rd motions be ruled out-of-order, but succeeded in throwing out his 2nd one.

I'm pretty sure any napkin transit planning innovations introduced at Council would have met a similar fate. It is not so simple as "Why don't we study a network including SELRT, SLRT and Crosstown East?"

In this sense, Matlow's motion calling for city staff to prepare an apples-to-apples report between SSE and LRT is more or less an attempt to do exactly what you guys want LRT advocates to do. And it failed, largely as a result of Scarborough councillors.
 
Hopkins123 said:
Exactly. When playing a zero-sum game, one can only expect to lose.

The LRT advocates never took into serious consideration the compromise of having the Bloor-Danforth extended as an at-grade/above-grade subway along the path of the SRT, which would have been costwise very similar as retrofitting the SRT to accommodate LRT. It was all or nothing for them, light rail or bust.
Click to expand...
Neither did the subway advocates. They wanted a subway. A subway. Anything less was the stuck up downtowners trying to cheap out on them.
 
I'm surprised (and disappointed) that no one in the Council probed the idea of cut and cover or surface. It would have been a valid way to appear concerned about the rising cost of the deep tunnel, without being drawn into directly opposing the desire for a subway.

I thought from some earlier remarks that someone like Campbell would push that kind of thing. Earlier, he had expressed some strong reservations about the subway extension. He usually sides with not spending money.

Guess Councillors (and their EA's) don't read UT.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top