[lordmandeep]

The system itself makes that difficult.

Hail Caesar!!

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

miller at least tried to get transit on the table with what he thought was an affordable & extensive plan and likely to get funding, which it did. but unfortunately, he should have aimed higher because funding was being given out like crazy. he could have asked for funding for a subway to rochester* and probably would have got it. he was a little bit too reserved. sometimes you gotta be forward.


*obviously that was an extreme exaggeration. but we could have probably had a few new lines funded plus some LRT.

Any mayor that seriously reduces transit funding would be making a drastic mistake, and cementing Toronto as a "backwards" city.

the last thing this city needs is a right winger who saves us money in the short term by making all kinds of crazy cuts but ends up costing us way more in the future. i'm sure lots of efficiencies can be found but they require real evaluation rather than personal ideological motivation.

 

[Chuck]

It won't be long before transit building is seen as less of a politically ideological (left vs. right) issue and more like a utility.

You have baited me into one of my favourite rants. One's viewpoint on transit has almost nothing to do with where they fall on the political spectrum, and is more based on where they are from. Most of the anti transit premiers of Ontario had one thing in common - they live in Northern Ontario. Most of the pro transit premiers of Ontario also had something in common - they live in cities and "get" the importance of transit. McGuinty = Ottawa, Harris = North Bay. A Conservative premier from Toronto would probably be better for transit expansion than an NDP premier from Sudbury.

If one thing is certain, it's that any mayoral candidate will support transit, no matter where they happen to fall on the spectrum. By now it's probably obvious how I voted in the byelection, but remember that I did so in between riding the subway home, and riding the elevator up to my almost downtown apartment.

 

[adma]

You have baited me into one of my favourite rants. One's viewpoint on transit has almost nothing to do with where they fall on the political spectrum, and is more based on where they are from. Most of the anti transit premiers of Ontario had one thing in common - they live in Northern Ontario. Most of the pro transit premiers of Ontario also had something in common - they live in cities and "get" the importance of transit. McGuinty = Ottawa, Harris = North Bay. A Conservative premier from Toronto would probably be better for transit expansion than an NDP premier from Sudbury.

Hmmm, Horwath's a Hamiltonian...

 

[salvius]

TTC's operating budget's busting at the seams. The province is deep in the deficit territory and will be so in the coming years with just the current funding commitments, and yet we are talking about 50 kms for subways? Where? How? With what money?

I'd love to live in the unlimited budget land, it'd be a lot of fun.

 

[GTS]

The election is planned this November, I believe, and the Transit platform of any mayoral candidate is most important to this voter. Miller has got funding for lots of transit projects for the next ten years and I hope the next mayor is as supportive of transit as Miller was.

I know their are other important aspects of being mayor but right now transit is my focus. I hope our next mayor doesn't tinker with the funding of the three Transit City lines that already have the funding in place- it is too bad the started Eglinton subway lost its funding way back when I was living in Vancouver. One thing I hope about the Sheppard East LRT funding is that they change it to at least fund extending the subway to the Agincourt GO station.

The funding for these projects come from the Federal and Provincial govt's but a good mayor's office is able to put good proposals on the table that the feds and provincial government are willing to support. Miller was a good salesman because he landed funding for a lot of transit projects. Miller wasn't very strong in negotiating strikes though.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

TTC's operating budget's busting at the seams. The province is deep in the deficit territory and will be so in the coming years with just the current funding commitments, and yet we are talking about 50 kms for subways? Where? How? With what money?

I'd love to live in the unlimited budget land, it'd be a lot of fun.

You do, however, already live in a world where reading posts in full before responding, not just scanning for keywords, is fun and easy. Note the words "could" and "instead" before "50km," particularly since almost $5B is proposed to be spent on a partially tunnelled Eglinton LRT which, if built as a subway, would get 60% or more of the way towards 50km.

 

[nfitz]

The election is planned this November, I believe, and the Transit platform of any mayoral candidate is most important to this voter.

The next Toronto election is November 2010.

Miller wasn't very strong in negotiating strikes though.

Well the only one he really tried to go far with was the CUPE strike ... and he did get concessions that no one else has ever managed to do. 5.something percent increase over 3 years instead of 12% over 4. Phase-out of the sick-leave plan that's been there since the 1940s. I certainly don't think he had much joy in that part of the job though ...

 

[nfitz]

TTC's operating budget's busting at the seams. The province is deep in the deficit territory and will be so in the coming years with just the current funding commitments, and yet we are talking about 50 kms for subways? Where? How? With what money?

I'd love to live in the unlimited budget land, it'd be a lot of fun.

Bingo! And this is the issue that those with there heads in the sand just don't get. 50 km of subway would cost some $15-billion. Given how much of the Eglinton funding is going to pay for the 12 km or so that they are tunelling, there would be precious little with what's left to do anything else.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It would not take much more money to turn the Richview corridor into ten-ish additional kilometres of subway. The TTC may insist in tunnelling under the corridor, but the discussion here is about what could have happened and what could happen. Forego tinkering with the RT and extend the Danforth line to get another 5-6km.

Of course, "50km of subway" is obviously just a ballpark figure.

 

[doady]

You have baited me into one of my favourite rants. One's viewpoint on transit has almost nothing to do with where they fall on the political spectrum, and is more based on where they are from. Most of the anti transit premiers of Ontario had one thing in common - they live in Northern Ontario. Most of the pro transit premiers of Ontario also had something in common - they live in cities and "get" the importance of transit. McGuinty = Ottawa, Harris = North Bay.

North Bay has the one of the highest per capita transit riderships in Ontario... only Ottawa, London, and Toronto are better.

 

[salvius]

You do, however, already live in a world where reading posts in full before responding, not just scanning for keywords, is fun and easy.

Isn't it just?

Note the words "could" and "instead" before "50km," particularly since almost $5B is proposed to be spent on a partially tunnelled Eglinton LRT which, if built as a subway, would get 60% or more of the way towards 50km.

I don't get this -- yes, we 'could' build this by having the province tack on many billion of dollars to the deficit for every year. We could use that funding for an eventual 50 km of subway sometime (if ever, the political and economic considerations make this an uncertain exercise) -- and much of the TC routing, of course, wouldn't ever need subway capacity. I'm sure that type of excess would go famously in the province outside the Toronto - it wouldn't even sell in a lot of the GTA.

The 5B on the Eglinton LRT costs precisely that much because of the tunneled part (built to be subway compatible no less if ridership demand were to call for it). The large bulk of that budget is going to be eaten up by the ~10 km tunnel -- and I'll be surprised if they manage to keep the thing even at the revised 5 billion. Building a tunneled 30 km line would have likely cost more than the entire TC and would benefit just one corridor and would not draw the ridership of TC in the aggregate (not even close). I don't see how this is better than what is proposed.

Where I think there is a discussion to be had is in building some of the lines as an above grade LRT. This could contain the costs quite well and give us the main benefits of the subway. It would, however, be considerably more affordable than going down the subway route, but still more expensive than the current proposals. However, this option appears to have no support either among the public or the political brass.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I don't get this -- yes, we 'could' build this by having the province tack on many billion of dollars to the deficit for every year. We could use that funding for an eventual 50 km of subway sometime (if ever, the political and economic considerations make this an uncertain exercise) -- and much of the TC routing, of course, wouldn't ever need subway capacity. I'm sure that type of excess would go famously in the province outside the Toronto - it wouldn't even sell in a lot of the GTA.

The 5B on the Eglinton LRT costs precisely that much because of the tunneled part (built to be subway compatible no less if ridership demand were to call for it). The large bulk of that budget is going to be eaten up by the ~10 km tunnel -- and I'll be surprised if they manage to keep the thing even at the revised 5 billion. Building a tunneled 30 km line would have likely cost more than the entire TC and would benefit just one corridor and would not draw the ridership of TC in the aggregate (not even close). I don't see how this is better than what is proposed.

Where I think there is a discussion to be had is in building some of the lines as an above grade LRT. This could contain the costs quite well and give us the main benefits of the subway. It would, however, be considerably more affordable than going down the subway route, but still more expensive than the current proposals. However, this option appears to have no support either among the public or the political brass.

I agree, you don't get it.

 

[salvius]

I agree, you don't get it.

Scarberiankhatru, seeing as how you've been spinning the same yarn for years, and because you obviously DO get it (a rising transit consultant, to be sure) -- especially in terms of budgeting -- why waste time on the forums, which is an exchange of opinions?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Scarberiankhatru, seeing as how you've been spinning the same yarn for years, and because you obviously DO get it (a rising transit consultant, to be sure) -- especially in terms of budgeting -- why waste time on the forums, which is an exchange of opinions?

A bizarre response from someone who's intolerant of other opinions...opinions that you didn't even bother to read in full before regurgitating a lame rant (no doubt copied and pasted from some other post). Nevermind the fact that Fresh Start mentioned using Transit City resources like funding and initiative towards subways instead, like the DRL, that would benefit the city more than projects like, to put words into his mouth, 3 light rail lines to Malvern.