News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     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
 5.1K     0 

This marketing has been very effective about the "Federal Government's share." The federal government is specifically constitutionally prohibited from funding projects purely of a local interest. The federal government has never funded transit projects in the past. The province historically funded 75% of transit projects. Now that they only want to pay a third (or less), they blame the federal government for not picking up its fair share. Also note that the provinces have pretty much exactly the same revenue generating powers as the federal government.

I'm not saying that the federal government shouldn't help fund major transit projects, but it's flawed to suggest that they're somehow delinquent in their responsibilities.
 
Indeed. Although people wisely look back at the Harris years with caution, they have swallowed his "1/3rd 3 ways" idea hook, line, and sinker. Amazing.

Is getting another party involved who, of course, wants to have their say in the matter and attach their own set of strings really what we need?
 
unimaginative:

While the Federal government doesn't directly participate in funding of transit projects, they did provide far more transfer payments (adjusted) in the past - revenues that could free up funding for other provicincial expenditures (and sadly, it could also be used to fund the politically popular tax cuts).

That said, just because we didn't have a national transit strategy (or housing, etc) doesn't mean it's first of all a bad idea. It all depends on what one consider as a priority. Medicare wasn't built in one day either as a national concept either, right?

AoD
 
This thread was from 2006, before Karen Stintz became the current Chair of the TTC.

Thought we should have a look back.

At the present time, I find the current TTC commissioners, especially with Karen Stintz as Chair, are the worst board I have seen in charge of the TTC. They do not listen to the needs or concerns of the transit user, but follow the wants of Rob Ford without regard of the transit user.
 
In billonlogan's face I guess :)

Karen Stintz said:
Your role requires vision, diplomacy and stewardship. Your success will result in the re-branding of the TTC, and lay to rest the criticism that politicians are too parochial to implement transit measures that will accommodate the needs of the people who use the system.
Click to expand...

billonlogan said:
It's too bad she's not on the ruling party. The candidates mentioned for the chair (Moscoe, Giambrone, Mihevic, ) are just not up to this challenge.
Click to expand...

Under the last administration schedules were enhanced, the fleet was renewed, a new focus on state of better repair (cleaning) was started, station ambassadors created, and older stations started being retrofit. Oh those good old days where the bigger news was Giambrone's mating habits.
 
Inkarnate said:
Starting to miss Adam quite a bit...
Click to expand...

Don't miss someone by default. I spoke to Adam once in person, and he was about as knowledgeable about interregional transit as is Doug Ford about Canadian literature. I despise Rob, but concede that geting the Eglinton line built and exlanded for the underground portion will make him one of favourite mayors in a long time.

Rob's reasoning behind underground transit is ass backwards, but none the less will get us a greatly enhanced subway system. Miller and Giambrone had zero interest in underground transit, and especially not the DRL. They only agreed to burying parts of certain lines by concession.
 
I heard Ford refer to the Eglinton line as a "subway" CBC Radio the other day. I guess that's how he sees it, even though it'll be using LRVs.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
I heard Ford refer to the Eglinton line as a "subway" CBC Radio the other day. I guess that's how he sees it, even though it'll be using LRVs.
Click to expand...
It's rapid transit rail vehicles at subway-like speeds in a subway tunnel, with subway-like stations. I can't imagine why someone wouldn't call it a subway.
 
Dandy Horse said:
if thats a subway than what's the Spadina line north of Eglinton West?
Click to expand...
A scar on the landscape.

There is a tradition, however, in major cities such as Toronto and New York, to referring to rapid transit train lines that are partially in subway, as subways for their entire length. London is similar, referring to many of their lines as the Underground in a similar situation. They even refer to their lines as Tubes, even ones that are entirely cut-and-cover and aren't actually constructed in a tube.

Given that the Eglinton line will function like a subway, unlike all the other LRT lines, then it seems quite reasonable to refer to it as one. This might be a very rare occasion where Rob Ford isn't 100% wrong.
 
i totally agree that the Eglinton line or all intents and purposes is a subway, however it would still be a subway, following your logic, if it was not underground from Laird east.
 
Dandy Horse said:
i totally agree that the Eglinton line or all intents and purposes is a subway, however it would still be a subway, following your logic, if it was not underground from Laird east.
Click to expand...
If it was grade separated, sure. If it stops at traffic lights for cars to cross it's tracks ... no.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top