|
|
|
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
Hopkins123
Senior Member
How can anyone rational be for a 6 kilometre long tunnel with zero intermediate stops if alternatives exist and are plausible? The biggest selling point of the McCowan alignment was the convenient direct access to Scarborough General Hospital and brisk 5 minute bus ride to the densely populated Cedarbrae and Woburn areas. The loss of that one station (for seemingly ridiculous reasons... if you want to complain about deep cavernous stations why not take a visit to Montreal sometime) puts the whole project at risk in my view.
I still strongly believe that Bloor-Danforth's natural terminus is the Town Centre, it's just the getting there that's where all the contention lies. I won't wade into the name calling and accusations, but both sides ought to agree by now that Scarborough is relatively underserved compared to most other parts of the City which is why the investment is going there at this time. DRL, Eglinton Crosstown expansion will come with their own independent funding schemes; just give Line 2 this one bone.
I still strongly believe that Bloor-Danforth's natural terminus is the Town Centre, it's just the getting there that's where all the contention lies. I won't wade into the name calling and accusations, but both sides ought to agree by now that Scarborough is relatively underserved compared to most other parts of the City which is why the investment is going there at this time. DRL, Eglinton Crosstown expansion will come with their own independent funding schemes; just give Line 2 this one bone.
sixrings
Senior Member
1
Last edited:
sixrings
Senior Member
sixrings
Senior Member
Coffey1 5871
denfromoakvillemilton said: ↑
The SRT alignment would be much easier to swallow. For sure. The subway will likely hit 4 billion at least by the end of the year. They should consider switching to the SRT alignment and use the rest of the money for other things. Like bringing the crosstown to the airport.
"The alignment is terrible. Period. The new alignment takes in a more efficient central route & brings in more commuters. The RT alignment through industrial lands is a joke & just one of many reasons we don't want the SLRT"
Coffey1 5874
denfromoakvillemilton said:
The new alignment is the reason why this thing is not getting built. 4 billion for 9700 riders is ridiculous.
"Really? As far as im aware this is what's being built. The alternative is only wanted from those that would never use it & care about feeding issue within their own backyard. 9700 riders is actually good compared to other subway lines in this City.
But hey it's Scarborough get out your pitchforks and join the Toronto Star in the politically driven agenda calls foul on everyone but themselves. Let's cut the crap tax & build the DRL & SSE together & cut out the poorly integrated LRT nonsense. Better bus service and future BRT will do fine to feed riders into the Subway & all Torontonians will have reasonable access quality jobs
The LRT as its designed & funded in Scarborough is more of an inconvenience & doesn't solve the greatest current concern which is isolating the majority of commuters from the core through multiple transfers. The LRT only increases that issue."
Coffey1 5876
"Neither route is optimal IMO but when the two are compared the McCowan corridor takes a much more Central route & with a stop at Danforth/Eglinton area this line will be highly effective"
Coffey1 5878
"1.)Its great the SLRT has more stations. But were are those stations? 2 are in the middle of industrial land which could soon be covered by Smarttrack/GO RER. What about Central East and Southeast residents?
2.)Where is this low density you speak of? Scarborough is a mix bag of low/medium & high in throughout. Aside from losing Markham/Sheppard I don't see any benefit to the alignment. Another stop on Eglinton will do great & McCowan/Sheppard has a fair amount of commercial land which should provide solid future development"
Coffey1 5906
wopchop said: ↑
Yeah ... there are probably more people living in the towers and towns at Kennedy & Ellesmere than along the entire McCowan Route from Eglinton to Ellesmere.
"There are many more high rise areas which will see their bus commute reduced greatly & in the end it serves a greater purpose. We are clearly not building a stop at the front door for everyone so central stop locations to cut feeder commutes down is more important than how many can walk to the stop. LRT's or BRT can do that in the future... But that another fight in another century likely when its truly needed. Buses to feed the subway are fine for now. "
Coffey1 6216
LNahid2000 said: ↑
I agree that the Sheppard transfer is stupid, and that Sheppard should be converted to LRT and extended in both directions. But this has nothing to do with the SRT replacement.
The other option is to have the Sheppard transfer be a Hong Kong style cross platform timed transfer, where both trains come in at the same time and people just cross the platform to transfer. Then it doesn't even really feel like a transfer. But I doubt the TTC could pull that off.
"It has everything to do with it. The only reason the RT is now a subway is because the idiotic Sheppard LRT was cancelled by Ford who wanted to build a subway on Sheppard. There was minimal support to save the second rate LRT line within Scarborough. The subway didn't pan out as Ford wanted but to save his "subway, subway, subway" slogan the opportunistic Stintz, Glenn DB & others drew up the RT replacement.
If Sheppard was a seamless transfer there wouldn't have been much opposition for commuters along that line. You also factor in that the Sheppard line was getting scaled back by sneaky Mcguinty & the SMLRT was take completely off the radar by Metrolinx. People fail to realize that many commuters who were trolled with the SMLRT would much rather bus to a subway than an LRT stub with a extra transfer now that no rapid transit will be built near them. Also the current RT route has always been questionable to many out here so the new subway route also grew some extra support.
Politicians basically trolled Scarborough with a second rate & poorly funded transit City plan. Subways seem to be the only decent form of transit Politicians understand & therefore Scarborough has little reason not to take the best overall plan tabled since both plans are flawed & few outsiders are helping fight for a effectively integrated network
The SSE would likely lead to the Sheppard subway extension in the future. And if no one is funding any better plans for Scarborough aside from the current SLRT and Sheppard LRT debacle then the majority of support will rightly fully fall with the Subway. Politicians choose to take the easy way out instead of converting the Sheppard subway to LRT.
I hope a respectful plan would prevail. But with all the self serving Politicians on both sides, the anti suburb propaganda giant of Toronto Star & Metroland media, & other regular Citizens who are also in jaded areas of Toronto also in need of transit & forced to fight against each other instead of working together Im not so sure this is possible"
denfromoakvillemilton said: ↑
The SRT alignment would be much easier to swallow. For sure. The subway will likely hit 4 billion at least by the end of the year. They should consider switching to the SRT alignment and use the rest of the money for other things. Like bringing the crosstown to the airport.
"The alignment is terrible. Period. The new alignment takes in a more efficient central route & brings in more commuters. The RT alignment through industrial lands is a joke & just one of many reasons we don't want the SLRT"
Coffey1 5874
denfromoakvillemilton said:
The new alignment is the reason why this thing is not getting built. 4 billion for 9700 riders is ridiculous.
"Really? As far as im aware this is what's being built. The alternative is only wanted from those that would never use it & care about feeding issue within their own backyard. 9700 riders is actually good compared to other subway lines in this City.
But hey it's Scarborough get out your pitchforks and join the Toronto Star in the politically driven agenda calls foul on everyone but themselves. Let's cut the crap tax & build the DRL & SSE together & cut out the poorly integrated LRT nonsense. Better bus service and future BRT will do fine to feed riders into the Subway & all Torontonians will have reasonable access quality jobs
The LRT as its designed & funded in Scarborough is more of an inconvenience & doesn't solve the greatest current concern which is isolating the majority of commuters from the core through multiple transfers. The LRT only increases that issue."
Coffey1 5876
"Neither route is optimal IMO but when the two are compared the McCowan corridor takes a much more Central route & with a stop at Danforth/Eglinton area this line will be highly effective"
Coffey1 5878
"1.)Its great the SLRT has more stations. But were are those stations? 2 are in the middle of industrial land which could soon be covered by Smarttrack/GO RER. What about Central East and Southeast residents?
2.)Where is this low density you speak of? Scarborough is a mix bag of low/medium & high in throughout. Aside from losing Markham/Sheppard I don't see any benefit to the alignment. Another stop on Eglinton will do great & McCowan/Sheppard has a fair amount of commercial land which should provide solid future development"
Coffey1 5906
wopchop said: ↑
Yeah ... there are probably more people living in the towers and towns at Kennedy & Ellesmere than along the entire McCowan Route from Eglinton to Ellesmere.
"There are many more high rise areas which will see their bus commute reduced greatly & in the end it serves a greater purpose. We are clearly not building a stop at the front door for everyone so central stop locations to cut feeder commutes down is more important than how many can walk to the stop. LRT's or BRT can do that in the future... But that another fight in another century likely when its truly needed. Buses to feed the subway are fine for now. "
Coffey1 6216
LNahid2000 said: ↑
I agree that the Sheppard transfer is stupid, and that Sheppard should be converted to LRT and extended in both directions. But this has nothing to do with the SRT replacement.
The other option is to have the Sheppard transfer be a Hong Kong style cross platform timed transfer, where both trains come in at the same time and people just cross the platform to transfer. Then it doesn't even really feel like a transfer. But I doubt the TTC could pull that off.
"It has everything to do with it. The only reason the RT is now a subway is because the idiotic Sheppard LRT was cancelled by Ford who wanted to build a subway on Sheppard. There was minimal support to save the second rate LRT line within Scarborough. The subway didn't pan out as Ford wanted but to save his "subway, subway, subway" slogan the opportunistic Stintz, Glenn DB & others drew up the RT replacement.
If Sheppard was a seamless transfer there wouldn't have been much opposition for commuters along that line. You also factor in that the Sheppard line was getting scaled back by sneaky Mcguinty & the SMLRT was take completely off the radar by Metrolinx. People fail to realize that many commuters who were trolled with the SMLRT would much rather bus to a subway than an LRT stub with a extra transfer now that no rapid transit will be built near them. Also the current RT route has always been questionable to many out here so the new subway route also grew some extra support.
Politicians basically trolled Scarborough with a second rate & poorly funded transit City plan. Subways seem to be the only decent form of transit Politicians understand & therefore Scarborough has little reason not to take the best overall plan tabled since both plans are flawed & few outsiders are helping fight for a effectively integrated network
The SSE would likely lead to the Sheppard subway extension in the future. And if no one is funding any better plans for Scarborough aside from the current SLRT and Sheppard LRT debacle then the majority of support will rightly fully fall with the Subway. Politicians choose to take the easy way out instead of converting the Sheppard subway to LRT.
I hope a respectful plan would prevail. But with all the self serving Politicians on both sides, the anti suburb propaganda giant of Toronto Star & Metroland media, & other regular Citizens who are also in jaded areas of Toronto also in need of transit & forced to fight against each other instead of working together Im not so sure this is possible"
sixrings
Senior Member
I never said he was for a one stop subway. But he was never an advocate of the RT corridor, in fact he outright dismissed it until after it appeared he would not get extra stations on the mccowan route. Then he flip flopped to the RT route in hopes of added stops. My point was one that he has flip flopped but he attacked others for wanting to flip flop back to LRT in the past because it would add to the cost of the project and delay it. If you are against flip flopping I believe it should be pretty much universal, not just when the context suits you.
I was wrong Hopkins... OneCity aka coffey1 on post 6657 replied to
raptor said: ↑
New plan: Subway extension with only 1 new station (at STC), Crosstown LRT extension to UofT Scarborough:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ay-plan-includes-fewer-stops/article28280303/
"A COMPROMISE for the LRT & Subway fanatics? As a Scarborough resident I fully support this revision. Still don't like the Sheppard - LRT/Subway hybrid hack job but atleast this connects to a broader network & transit will now reach out to the East & South East areas in desperate need of revitalization. This also puts the "heart of Scarborough" on the Subway map which is important for any future business.
Now that we may have a decent "plan" lets see if they can actually build it all or they are just trolling the poorer areas of Scarborough again only to cut funding thru-out the project."
So apparently he thought the one stop was a "decent" plan. So he has flipped and flopped not only on the route but how many stops.. but hey i am the bad guy for pointing out inconsistencies.
Last edited:
sixrings
Senior Member
https://heleo.com/facts-dont-change-peoples-minds-heres/16242/
Changing others’ minds, or our own, is a tricky business. Here’s how to make it happen.
If you had asked me this question–How do you change a mind?–two years ago, I would have given you a different answer.
As a former scientist, I would have cautioned you to rely on objective facts and statistics. Develop a strong case for your side, back it up with hard, cold, irrefutable data, and voila!
Drowning the other person with facts, I assumed, was the best way to prove that global warming is real, the war on drugs has failed, or the current business strategy adopted by your risk-averse boss with zero imagination is not working.
Since then, I’ve discovered a significant problem with this approach.
It doesn’t work.
The mind doesn’t follow the facts. Facts, as John Adams put it, are stubborn things, but our minds are even more stubborn. Doubt isn’t always resolved in the face of facts for even the most enlightened among us, however credible and convincing those facts might be.
As a result of the well-documented confirmation bias, we tend to undervalue evidence that contradicts our beliefs and overvalue evidence that confirms them. We filter out inconvenient truths and arguments on the opposing side. As a result, our opinions solidify, and it becomes increasingly harder to disrupt established patterns of thinking.
We believe in alternative facts if they support our pre-existing beliefs. Aggressively mediocre corporate executives remain in office because we interpret the evidence to confirm the accuracy of our initial hiring decision. Doctors continue to preach the ills of dietary fat despite emerging research to the contrary.
If you have any doubts about the power of the confirmation bias, think back to the last time you Googled a question. Did you meticulously read each link to get a broad objective picture? Or did you simply skim through the links looking for the page that confirms what you already believed was true? And let’s face it, you’ll always find that page, especially if you’re willing to click through to Page 12 on the Google search results.
“Facts, as John Adams put it, are stubborn things, but our minds are even more stubborn.”18
If facts don’t work, how do you change a mind–whether it’s your own or your neighbor’s?
Give the mind an out
We’re reluctant to acknowledge mistakes. To avoid admitting we were wrong, we’ll twist ourselves into positions that even seasoned yogis can’t hold.
The key is to trick the mind by giving it an excuse. Convince your own mind (or your friend) that your prior decision or prior belief was the right one given what you knew, but now that the underlying facts have changed, so should the mind.
But instead of giving the mind an out, we often go for a punch to the gut. We belittle the other person (“I told you so”). We ostracize (“Basket of deplorables”). We ridicule (“What an idiot”).
Schadenfreude might be your favorite pastime, but it has the counterproductive effect of activating the other person’s defenses and solidifying their positions. The moment you belittle the mind for believing in something, you’ve lost the battle. At that point, the mind will dig in rather than give in. Once you’ve equated someone’s beliefs with idiocracy, changing that person’s mind will require nothing short of an admission that they are unintelligent. And that’s an admission that most minds aren’t willing to make.
Democrats in the United States are already falling into this trap. They’re not going to win the 2020 presidential elections by convincing Donald Trump supporters that they were wrong to vote for him last November or that they’re responsible for his failures in office. Instead, as author and psychology professor Robert Cialdini explains, Democrats must offer Trump supporters a way to get out of their prior commitment while saving face: “Well, of course you were in a position to make that decision in November because no one knew about X.”
Colombians adopted a similar strategy in the 1950s when the Rojas dictatorship collapsed. As I explain in my forthcoming book, although the Colombian military was complicit in the abuses of the Rojas regime, civilians deftly avoided pointing any fingers at the military. Instead, they managed to march the military back to the barracks with its dignity intact. They recognized that they would need the military’s cooperation both during the transition process and in its aftermath. So they offered an alternative narrative for public consumption that uncoupled the armed forces from the Rojas regime. In this narrative, which the military leaders found much easier to swallow, it was the “presidential family” and a few corrupt civilians close to Rojas—not military officers—who were responsible for the regime’s excesses. Were they to take a different approach, a military dictatorship—not democracy—may have resulted.
“The moment you belittle the mind for believing in something, you’ve lost the battle.”26
Your beliefs are not you
In my early years in academia, I would tend to get defensive when someone challenged one of my arguments during a presentation. My heart rate would skyrocket, I would tense up, and my answer would reflect the disdain with which I viewed the antagonistic question (and the questioner).
I know I’m not alone here. We all tend to identify with our beliefs and arguments.
This is my business.
This is my article.
This is my idea.
But here’s the problem. When your beliefs are entwined with your identity, changing your mind means changing your identity. That’s a really hard sell.
A possible solution, and one that I’ve adopted in my own life, is to put a healthy separation between you and the products of you. I changed my vocabulary to reflect this mental shift. At conferences, instead of saying, “In this paper, I argue . . .,” I began to say “This paper argues . . .”
This subtle verbal tweak tricked my mind into thinking that my arguments and me were not one and the same. Obviously, I was the one who came up with these arguments, but once they were out of my body, they took a life of their own. They became separate, abstract objects that I could view with some objectivity.
It was no longer personal. It was simply a hypothesis proven wrong.
Build up your empathy muscle
Playing Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth on repeat to a room of Detroit auto workers won’t change their mind on global warming if they’re convinced your agenda will put them out of a job.
“When your beliefs are entwined with your identity, changing your mind means changing your identity. That’s a really hard sell.”
Humans operate on different frequencies. If someone disagrees with you, it’s not because they’re wrong, and you’re right. It’s because they believe something that you don’t believe.
The challenge is to figure out what that thing is and adjust your frequency. If employment is the primary concern of the Detroit auto worker, showing him images of endangered penguins (as adorable as they may be) or Antarctica’s melting glaciers will get you nowhere. Instead, show him how renewable energy will provide job security to his grandchildren. Now, you’ve got his attention.
Get out of your echo chamber
We live in a perpetual echo chamber. We friend people like us on Facebook. We follow people like us on Twitter. We read the news outlets that are on the same political frequency as us.
This means our opinions aren’t being stress tested nearly as frequently as they should.
Make a point to befriend people who disagree with you. Expose yourself to environments where your opinions can be challenged, as uncomfortable and awkward as that might be.
Marc Andreessen has a saying that I love: “Strong beliefs, loosely held.” Strongly believe in an idea, but be willing to change your opinion if the facts show otherwise.
Ask yourself, “What fact would change one of my strongly held opinions?” If the answer is “no fact would change my opinion,” you’re in trouble. A person who is unwilling to change his or her mind even with an underlying change in the facts is, by definition, a fundamentalist.
In the end, it takes courage and determination to see the truth instead of the convenient.
But it’s well worth the effort.
Changing others’ minds, or our own, is a tricky business. Here’s how to make it happen.
If you had asked me this question–How do you change a mind?–two years ago, I would have given you a different answer.
As a former scientist, I would have cautioned you to rely on objective facts and statistics. Develop a strong case for your side, back it up with hard, cold, irrefutable data, and voila!
Drowning the other person with facts, I assumed, was the best way to prove that global warming is real, the war on drugs has failed, or the current business strategy adopted by your risk-averse boss with zero imagination is not working.
Since then, I’ve discovered a significant problem with this approach.
It doesn’t work.
The mind doesn’t follow the facts. Facts, as John Adams put it, are stubborn things, but our minds are even more stubborn. Doubt isn’t always resolved in the face of facts for even the most enlightened among us, however credible and convincing those facts might be.
As a result of the well-documented confirmation bias, we tend to undervalue evidence that contradicts our beliefs and overvalue evidence that confirms them. We filter out inconvenient truths and arguments on the opposing side. As a result, our opinions solidify, and it becomes increasingly harder to disrupt established patterns of thinking.
We believe in alternative facts if they support our pre-existing beliefs. Aggressively mediocre corporate executives remain in office because we interpret the evidence to confirm the accuracy of our initial hiring decision. Doctors continue to preach the ills of dietary fat despite emerging research to the contrary.
If you have any doubts about the power of the confirmation bias, think back to the last time you Googled a question. Did you meticulously read each link to get a broad objective picture? Or did you simply skim through the links looking for the page that confirms what you already believed was true? And let’s face it, you’ll always find that page, especially if you’re willing to click through to Page 12 on the Google search results.
“Facts, as John Adams put it, are stubborn things, but our minds are even more stubborn.”18
If facts don’t work, how do you change a mind–whether it’s your own or your neighbor’s?
Give the mind an out
We’re reluctant to acknowledge mistakes. To avoid admitting we were wrong, we’ll twist ourselves into positions that even seasoned yogis can’t hold.
The key is to trick the mind by giving it an excuse. Convince your own mind (or your friend) that your prior decision or prior belief was the right one given what you knew, but now that the underlying facts have changed, so should the mind.
But instead of giving the mind an out, we often go for a punch to the gut. We belittle the other person (“I told you so”). We ostracize (“Basket of deplorables”). We ridicule (“What an idiot”).
Schadenfreude might be your favorite pastime, but it has the counterproductive effect of activating the other person’s defenses and solidifying their positions. The moment you belittle the mind for believing in something, you’ve lost the battle. At that point, the mind will dig in rather than give in. Once you’ve equated someone’s beliefs with idiocracy, changing that person’s mind will require nothing short of an admission that they are unintelligent. And that’s an admission that most minds aren’t willing to make.
Democrats in the United States are already falling into this trap. They’re not going to win the 2020 presidential elections by convincing Donald Trump supporters that they were wrong to vote for him last November or that they’re responsible for his failures in office. Instead, as author and psychology professor Robert Cialdini explains, Democrats must offer Trump supporters a way to get out of their prior commitment while saving face: “Well, of course you were in a position to make that decision in November because no one knew about X.”
Colombians adopted a similar strategy in the 1950s when the Rojas dictatorship collapsed. As I explain in my forthcoming book, although the Colombian military was complicit in the abuses of the Rojas regime, civilians deftly avoided pointing any fingers at the military. Instead, they managed to march the military back to the barracks with its dignity intact. They recognized that they would need the military’s cooperation both during the transition process and in its aftermath. So they offered an alternative narrative for public consumption that uncoupled the armed forces from the Rojas regime. In this narrative, which the military leaders found much easier to swallow, it was the “presidential family” and a few corrupt civilians close to Rojas—not military officers—who were responsible for the regime’s excesses. Were they to take a different approach, a military dictatorship—not democracy—may have resulted.
“The moment you belittle the mind for believing in something, you’ve lost the battle.”26
Your beliefs are not you
In my early years in academia, I would tend to get defensive when someone challenged one of my arguments during a presentation. My heart rate would skyrocket, I would tense up, and my answer would reflect the disdain with which I viewed the antagonistic question (and the questioner).
I know I’m not alone here. We all tend to identify with our beliefs and arguments.
This is my business.
This is my article.
This is my idea.
But here’s the problem. When your beliefs are entwined with your identity, changing your mind means changing your identity. That’s a really hard sell.
A possible solution, and one that I’ve adopted in my own life, is to put a healthy separation between you and the products of you. I changed my vocabulary to reflect this mental shift. At conferences, instead of saying, “In this paper, I argue . . .,” I began to say “This paper argues . . .”
This subtle verbal tweak tricked my mind into thinking that my arguments and me were not one and the same. Obviously, I was the one who came up with these arguments, but once they were out of my body, they took a life of their own. They became separate, abstract objects that I could view with some objectivity.
It was no longer personal. It was simply a hypothesis proven wrong.
Build up your empathy muscle
Playing Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth on repeat to a room of Detroit auto workers won’t change their mind on global warming if they’re convinced your agenda will put them out of a job.
“When your beliefs are entwined with your identity, changing your mind means changing your identity. That’s a really hard sell.”
Humans operate on different frequencies. If someone disagrees with you, it’s not because they’re wrong, and you’re right. It’s because they believe something that you don’t believe.
The challenge is to figure out what that thing is and adjust your frequency. If employment is the primary concern of the Detroit auto worker, showing him images of endangered penguins (as adorable as they may be) or Antarctica’s melting glaciers will get you nowhere. Instead, show him how renewable energy will provide job security to his grandchildren. Now, you’ve got his attention.
Get out of your echo chamber
We live in a perpetual echo chamber. We friend people like us on Facebook. We follow people like us on Twitter. We read the news outlets that are on the same political frequency as us.
This means our opinions aren’t being stress tested nearly as frequently as they should.
Make a point to befriend people who disagree with you. Expose yourself to environments where your opinions can be challenged, as uncomfortable and awkward as that might be.
Marc Andreessen has a saying that I love: “Strong beliefs, loosely held.” Strongly believe in an idea, but be willing to change your opinion if the facts show otherwise.
Ask yourself, “What fact would change one of my strongly held opinions?” If the answer is “no fact would change my opinion,” you’re in trouble. A person who is unwilling to change his or her mind even with an underlying change in the facts is, by definition, a fundamentalist.
In the end, it takes courage and determination to see the truth instead of the convenient.
But it’s well worth the effort.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I appreciate you taking time to dig out those old quotes, but IMO the described evolution of thoughts isn't "flip-flopping" but a reasonable response to the changing conditions.
The 3-stop McCowan subway route is better than the SRT-corridor subway route, therefore the McCowan route deserved support when it was projected to have 3 stops.
The 1-stop MCowan route isn't any better than the SRT-corridor subway route, therefore if we can't get 3-stops, it is reasonable to revisit the SRT corridor option.
Switching back to light rail would cause political problems in addition to technical problems, therefore it is still not a good idea.
If you demand a strict adherence to a line of thought once selected, regardless to the changing circumstances, then you appear to be against the notion of re-examining one's believes advocated in your other post.
OneCity
Senior Member
With or without Smarttack around Kennedy, it would really be a shame if council builds proceeds without the stop at Lawrence and McCowan for serving those you mentioned but it also provides a better connection to the City for those further East as I consider Markham and Lawrence past Kingston Rd. and Lawrence a combined "priority area"and this stop would certainly help them with a better connection. Hopefully the reality finally sets in after next election for those that held hope of the LRT happening hopefully soften their stance and make better use of this 6km tunnel should it continue to go ahead.
Tory has already voted in favor of this stop recently, Ford will surely campaign strongly on the fact it was taken away, and given the vote only lost by 2 it wont take much. I imagine who ever wins Ward 44 will add 1 vote as they were absent and that means only one vote would be required to soften from the middle if Tory wins and reality sets in. The outcome may have to do with whether the 30% design vote comes before or after the election
Last edited:
sixrings
Senior Member
Revisiting the rt corridor would have political completions as well since the rt would need To be shut down for a number of years.
Also wasn't it said that the corridor was to narrow for subway, go, Smarttrack?
I don't expect for someone to make a decision without all the information but we had a professionally designed Fully funded lrt plan with contracts signed when we elected a mayor without any transit expertise other than knowing the word subway, cancelled a plan for hopes and dreams. Sometimes you get what you asked for.
Also wasn't it said that the corridor was to narrow for subway, go, Smarttrack?
I don't expect for someone to make a decision without all the information but we had a professionally designed Fully funded lrt plan with contracts signed when we elected a mayor without any transit expertise other than knowing the word subway, cancelled a plan for hopes and dreams. Sometimes you get what you asked for.
Last edited:
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Can someone clarify this for me? Is the whole Subway vs LRT debate only because of limited funds to spend on Scarborough? If money wasn’t the main limiting factor, then a subway on McCowan to Sheppard (3 stop), an LRT from STC to Malvern, and the Eglinton East LRT can be completed? If that was the plan, then would anyone still complain? Not about money (it would be massive), but alignments.
rbt
Senior Member
If you take money out of the equation, including ignoring any impact to taxation, then 98% of Torontonians would probably prefer if the street capacity was tripled (or more) instead via underground stacking of lanes. Surface is for start/end of trip (links to local streets, stores, parking, etc.). Basement 1 is east/west express; no intersections. Basement 2 is north/south express; again no intersections. Every major street is a 6 lane expressway.
So yes, it's about the best use of money. Subways are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and tend to get favoured by the "lower taxes" crowd. This combination means things like libraries, community centers, parks, and all the other budgets Ford/Tory have cut or trimmed suffer. At some point there has to be a reason to take that transit trip for the capacity to make sense and just going to work doesn't do it for me.
I would not have built SCC or Spadina or Sheppard or even the Downsview extension from Wilson. At risk of repeating AreBe, our surface (GO) corridors are woefully underused and annual maintenance costs on the entire 416 GO network is roughly the same as those extensions.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
The issue has always been value for money. $3.56 Billion for three stop vs significantly less money for seven stops was already seen as an appalling waste of money by many. $3.5 Billion for a single stop is even more abhorrent.
And, no, the problem isn’t limited funds to spend on Scarborough. I don’t think you’ll find very many advocating against spending extra on the $1 Billion Eglinton East LRT, for example (at least not on grounds that it costs too much money)
sixrings
Senior Member
it is completely about money. Some people want to suggest just raise taxes sufficiently to pay for all of it. OK lets apply that logic to a house. My wife wants our washrooms and kitchen redone, so we take out a second mortgage. I want a man cave done so we take out a third mortgage. Then I have kids and they think they need separate rooms so we now need to extend the house to fulfill everyones needs. I can go to the bank but at a certain point even the bank which likes to loan money is going to say that we cannot afford it. It is also more than about transit in Scarborough. Places like the waterfront, liberty village, rexdale, eglinton west to the airport all need transit as well. If we could afford a subway on every corridor there wouldn't be debates. Deep down we all know that isnt true. We do know we NEED a DRL. and personally I would like to see TC LRT lines see the light of day. I can stomach the Danforth extension but we cannot just keep throwing good money after bad thinking or telling others do not worry there will be enough money for other projects. That simply is not true.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
You do realize that Toronto has hit its self-imposed debt ceiling, right? And that council can’t just wave a wand and make more money appear? And that Toronto will have new ward boundaries in 2018 (with more downtown wards)? Short of a generous donation from another level of government, the additional stop(s) aren’t happening.