AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
SRT as LRT (or honestly, any type of transit on the current RT alignment) never interfered with cars - which of course, he didn't even know even though he spent a night on it.
AoD
|
|
|
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
SRT as LRT (or honestly, any type of transit on the current RT alignment) never interfered with cars - which of course, he didn't even know even though he spent a night on it.
AoD
narduch
Senior Member
Ford didn't even understand what an LRT was .
BurlOak
Senior Member
Its amazing that someone as dumb as Ford came up with the best transit for plan for Scarborough in the past decade.
What does that say about everyone else?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It sure is a good sign when dumb (and an utter failure of a leadership) is being played up as a virtue. Nevermind what it said about anyone else - the question is what does it say about the person promoting this mythology.
AoD
Last edited:
Rainforest
Senior Member
A broken clock is right twice a day ...
Not that I share the view it was the best transit plan; but even if it was, he still could hit the jackpot accidentally.
44 North
Senior Member
Honestly I don't think even LRT supporters really know what LRT is either. Because the SLRT by many definitions would not fit into the "LRT" category. Was to be fully grade-separated and (am almost certain) fully automated end-to-end. On top of being a high-frequency, high-capacity, rapid transit service. How many LRT lines have those kinds of qualities?
There's no real transit handbook so it's not like calling it LRT is technically wrong. But I believe many engineers in other cities wouldn't quantify SLRT as LRT, or at the very least would consider usage of the term a confusing disservice to what was planned. The term LRT is good for Spadina, Queens Quay, St Clair, FWLRT, Eglinton Crosstown. Whereas everything about SLRT says subway/metro.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I'd rather call FWLRT, Eglinton, and SLRT (if it was still on the book) "LRT", while Spadina, Queens Quay, and St Clair are just advanced streetcars. The latter three are more reliable than mixed-traffic streetcars, but functionally they are more similar to regular streetcars (slow due to the close stop spacing, and tailored for local service) than to the suburban light rail lines.
Although, the terms are vague indeed.
44 North
Senior Member
But the close stop spacing is relative. Put an in-median LRT in downtown, you're going to have close stops. Put it in a more subrubany realm and they'll be farther apart. Ditto for BRT or subways. Doesn't mean it de facto becomes a different mode. And over centuries the FWLRTs and SELRTs will gain more stops and traffic lights. Does that mean they stop being LRTs and morph into some new mode of "advanced streetcars"? I don't think so. Still LRT. And throwing in that term is certainly confusing, particularly since Spadina, St Clair, and QQ were all called LRTs, and built to top notch standards like LRTs tend to be.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Terminology is one thing - not knowing that the alignment is actually segregated from vehicular traffic and willfully promoting otherwise is not stupid, it is malicious.
AoD
AoD
Rainforest
Senior Member
From another thread ..
This statement is mostly correct, but with one important clarification. QP did not offer Ford any additional funding in excess of what it offered Miller (and indeed it would be strange for QP to reward his anti-transit position in this manner). All negotiations were happening within the existing funding envelope.
The full story is:
- Prior to Ford's election, QP and Miller had a signed agreement to fund 4 light rail lines (SLRT, Eglinton central, Finch West, and Sheppard East).
- Ford campaigned on cancelling all those lines, and building SSE and Sheppard East subway instead. However, he had no funds to do that alone.
- Once Ford won, negotiations with QP started. Full details were never made public. But, it is reasonable to assume that McGuinty said, Eglinton LRT must be build in some form if the city wants any QP funds at all.
- That led to two options. One, apparently favored by QP, was to leave Eglinton and SLRT as is, but re-purpose the Sheppard East LRT funds and Finch West funds to build the Sheppard subway extension. Hence, those 2 billion (Sheppard East + Finch West).
That was unacceptable for Ford, due to his ideological opposition to surface rail in any form.
- The other option was to direct all funds to the combined and fully grade-separated Eglinton - Scarborough LRT. That's the option that got selected, until the City Council rebelled a year later and changed it again.
In retrospect, accepting that deal was a smart move on QP's part; it allowed the central tunnel of Eglinton LRT to progress uninterrupted by political turmoil.
This statement is mostly correct, but with one important clarification. QP did not offer Ford any additional funding in excess of what it offered Miller (and indeed it would be strange for QP to reward his anti-transit position in this manner). All negotiations were happening within the existing funding envelope.
The full story is:
- Prior to Ford's election, QP and Miller had a signed agreement to fund 4 light rail lines (SLRT, Eglinton central, Finch West, and Sheppard East).
- Ford campaigned on cancelling all those lines, and building SSE and Sheppard East subway instead. However, he had no funds to do that alone.
- Once Ford won, negotiations with QP started. Full details were never made public. But, it is reasonable to assume that McGuinty said, Eglinton LRT must be build in some form if the city wants any QP funds at all.
- That led to two options. One, apparently favored by QP, was to leave Eglinton and SLRT as is, but re-purpose the Sheppard East LRT funds and Finch West funds to build the Sheppard subway extension. Hence, those 2 billion (Sheppard East + Finch West).
That was unacceptable for Ford, due to his ideological opposition to surface rail in any form.
- The other option was to direct all funds to the combined and fully grade-separated Eglinton - Scarborough LRT. That's the option that got selected, until the City Council rebelled a year later and changed it again.
In retrospect, accepting that deal was a smart move on QP's part; it allowed the central tunnel of Eglinton LRT to progress uninterrupted by political turmoil.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
BurlOak
Senior Member
St. Clair is fully grade separated. Not the whole thing, but good parts of it.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6766092,-79.4490651,31m/data=!3m1!1e3
44 North
Senior Member
And that children is why we (hopefully) learned a lesson about not electing a braindead piece of crap lol.
But was speaking more generally and irrespective of individuals or politicians. Certainly foolish for someone to argue against a multi-billion dollar investment without knowing the most basic of details. But in my view everything about the Scarb situation was polluted going back to the 80s. Not because of plans or those promoting them, rather semantics and terminology. Current Line 3 spent +30yrs called an "RT". Shouldn't have been. Looks, sounds, smells, and acts like a subway. Call it a subway - which we now mostly do thanks to the 1-4 Line renaming. Its upgrade plan should've been called just that - an upgrade. Not an LRT - even if its chosen vehicle was a LRV of the low or high-floor variety. Why, because the city was already well-versed in LRTs by then what with Harbourfront, Spadina, St Clair. And none of them are anything like Line 3.
But even posts like yours can muddy the waters - specifically the phrase "segregated" instead of saying separated. Segregated is the technical term used in the reports to describe our current LRT lines and their 20cm curb. Sorry, this whole thing is a gripe of mine, and that supposed Matlow lesson WKlis posted only furthers this imo. But think we can all agree that we really missed out on not upgrading Line 3, whether it's called LRT or not.
OneCity
Senior Member
It actually says a lot about the ideologies of the political correct politicians that a brain dead bigot and can win an election in one of the most diverse City in the world. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to point out Transit City was a short sighted band-aid and poorly integrated by forcing ill placed transfers and impacted traffic (in lines other than the SLRT) while comparable Centers were connected seamlessly. Ford just ran on what enough people were already saying. Turns out there's a lot of people not happy with the status quo when called out. A flawed man vs. a flawed transit ideology.
Populists are not the ones to solve the issue, as they are just sending the message for the people when enough ate fed up. How we respond to these movements is more important. And as far as transit goes in this City, aside from Tory standing alone near the Centre putting together a very decent overall plan (with some obvious warts) in the midst of absurd polarization, there is still a chunk of council who wants to triple down on a flawed transit plan which was rightfully rejected and they refuse to to solve any the issues. Its this unwillingness to listen to people that keeps these types relevant.
I fear there are many on council who still haven't learned there lesson here and until then politics will be poisonous and the apathy vote waiting to throw a political bomb will remain very strong. As a politician if your not reaching over to help bridge gaps you might as well be holding up signs campaigning for these types as that's the exact reason they are so very relevant In the first place.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Again, if you voted for someone brain-dead, the choice is solely the responsibility of the one making that choice, not that of anyone else. The rest of the slate might not be one’s ideological ideal, but if the choice is between someone with brains and not having one, it is clear what choice has to be made.
AoD
AoD