Dan416
Senior Member
Does anyone find it striking that Sarah Thomson's plan is very, very close to SOS's plan?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Dan416
- Start date
CodeMonkey
Active Member
I think Transit City fate is in question. Miller and Giambrone are really the only ones who seem to be driving the use of LRT's, and since Miller is leaving and Giambrone may be pushed off to the side when a new mayor is elected, it's no doubt it leaves the question who will continue Transit City as a LRT network or decide to alter the plan.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
FWIW, the Metrolinx Act requires municipalities to follow the RTP. No city can unilaterally build regionally-significant transit infrastructure without changing the RTP - and the Mayor of Toronto has only the power of persuasion to do that.
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
That said, the RTP is rather unspecific about technology. It certainly defines corridors in a general fashion, but there is nothing in it that would prevent us from following the SOS plan; whatever you may think of it, it does follow the set of Metrolinx corridors closely enough to be called compliant and subways do fall within the definition of "other rapid transit" they use for the corridors. Getting around the BCAs might be interesting, but I doubt it would be that hard to convince either the province or a court of the flaws in any of the individual ones which have been completed.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
The RTP identifies subway, regional rail, express rail and "other rapid transit' (which includes LRT, BRT and automated mini-metro). In my opinion, it's quite clear on what class of technology will be considered.
CodeMonkey
Active Member
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
In practice that leaves a lot of wiggle room; I grant it would take some explaining to get a full subway on the "other" routes, but the line between the subway, regional and express techs is virtually nonexistent in practice (especially the latter two), while the mini metro/subway line is equally thin on every point but automated operation. My feeling is that Metrolinx does have tech in mind for each line (given that the "corridors" indicated are all really project underway or proposed before the RTP), but that there may yet be room for movement, especially if a new provincial government is less directly attached to the plan but intends to comply with the act itself.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
Mini-Metro?
Could be Skytrain, could be Canada Line, could be Docklands Light Railway. A rose by any other name...You are very right... the line between technologies is quite thin. The simple solution is to amend the plan, and that's not something I am opposed to. It's a living document and should be reviewed regularly. What I am opposed to is candidates who only tell voters half of the story. It's a lie by omission and only serves to make people more cynical about politics in general.
There are plenty of people who would get elected on a "no-growth" platform, but we all know that this is unfeasible - same idea.
Last edited:
CodeMonkey
Active Member
I always have this haunting suspicion the ICTS would never leave the city, the fact that Eglinton was discussed for a possible ICTS line, and the history of transit planing in the city is know to change drastically at the very last minute.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
I believe that it has received a bad rap from the way it was implemented in Toronto. I refuse to believe that it can't be made reliable and efficient like any other transit line. There's no question that the quality of service on the Vancouver Skytrain is higher than the RT despite using the same underlying technology, and I suspect that it would be more attractive if that same quality of service was provided.
Hypothetical, I know. But, hypotheticals are fun!
Hypothetical, I know. But, hypotheticals are fun!
Last edited:
Dan416
Senior Member
I don't think I'd be opposed to Eglinton as ICTS.
nfitz
Superstar
It's no where close. SOS priced their subways at a lot more than $200-million per kilometre!
If this politician, in her first announcement, is willing to try and deceive us so much on cost, how can we take her seriously?
Dan416
Senior Member
I wasn't referring to funding at all. I was referring to the plan, i.e. the map.
If you think she's the first and only politician to deceive anyone, how can we take you seriously on political issues?
nfitz
Superstar
It's such blatant deception though ... or worse, is simply ignorance. In either case, is that ignorance what we want in office?
Dan416
Senior Member
Blatant deception? We all know the cost will go up anyway. By your definition, Transit City is blatant deception as well. Yet you're a vocal Transit City supporter. So I question your motives and your double-standard doublespeak.