[AlvinofDiaspar]

Woodbridge:

Why arbitarily stop at Network 2011? Stopping at the last study that suggested subways as THE solution just because it is your preferred solution ignores the fact that previous studies have indicated other modes for those very corridors, and the fact that Network 2011, RTES and the like is just as much a political document as the TC plan is.

AoD

 

[Archivist]

It's doesn't mean he's stopping plans for a transit system altogether, he's just stopping the current ones that are doomed to be subject to poor planning and cost overruns.

eddiek, actually, he used the words "stop" and "moratorium", which means his stated intention, apart from the Sheppard LRT and University line extensions, is to stop Transit City. I don't see how that can be stated any clearer.

You seem to want all the work and funding committments that exist now to be flushed down the toilet, in the name of some future means of eliminating "poor planning and cost overruns". What Mr. Rossi is saying, in no uncertain terms, is that if he is elected and has his way, Transit City is dead. There is nothing else there to take its place, and once gone, the city will be eight years to a decade in working towards a replacement.

 

[Archivist]

What of the RTES? What of Network2011? What of all the studies done before TC? All that money was equally flushed down the toilet

And so your solution, for that money flushed down the toilet, is more of the same? This makes no sense. I can understand disagreeing with some aspects of TC (I have found a lot of the arguments against it here and elsewhere persuasive to an extent), but what Rossi is proposing is bringing us back to, say, 2000. No plans, no funding, no nothing. Let me repeat: if TC is gone, there may be some that rejoice, but we will be eight to ten years away from another plan. And, if anything thinks that "other plan" will be perfect, will attract funding, will not have cost overruns, will satisfy everyone, they are sadly mistaken.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Woodbridge:

Why arbitarily stop at Network 2011? Stopping at the last study that suggested subways as THE solution just because it is your preferred solution ignores the fact that previous studies have indicated other modes for those very corridors, and the fact that Network 2011, RTES and the like is just as much a political document as the TC plan is.

AoD

There was no secret reason for stopping at Network 2011. They (Network 2011 and RTES) are just the two studies that first came to my mind without having to go off and do a search. My point being that TC was proposed apparently without any studies or planning at all (or none that I have seen), yet we have pages and pages of studies that were somehow ignored.

I'm not a subway first advocate, in fact I've argued against both the Spadina and Yonge extensions into York Region and that riders there could be better served by LRT.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

And so your solution, for that money flushed down the toilet, is more of the same? This makes no sense. I can understand disagreeing with some aspects of TC (I have found a lot of the arguments against it here and elsewhere persuasive to an extent), but what Rossi is proposing is bringing us back to, say, 2000. No plans, no funding, no nothing. Let me repeat: if TC is gone, there may be some that rejoice, but we will be eight to ten years away from another plan. And, if anything thinks that "other plan" will be perfect, will attract funding, will not have cost overruns, will satisfy everyone, they are sadly mistaken.

If it means getting the network expansion properly studied and evaluated, and getting it right than emphatically YES

 

[eddiek]

eddiek, actually, he used the words "stop" and "moratorium", which means his stated intention, apart from the Sheppard LRT and University line extensions, is to stop Transit City. I don't see how that can be stated any clearer.

You seem to want all the work and funding committments that exist now to be flushed down the toilet, in the name of some future means of eliminating "poor planning and cost overruns". What Mr. Rossi is saying, in no uncertain terms, is that if he is elected and has his way, Transit City is dead. There is nothing else there to take its place, and once gone, the city will be eight years to a decade in working towards a replacement.

I want Transit just as much as the next guy but I don't want to see project magically going up in cost.
Based on the article on page 66 of this thread -Asked whether he would put a moratorium on Transit City, he said: “I want to study it. I think there's some real problems that have been shown by what's happened at St. Clair and I think we'd be foolish not to have a deep and long look at that.”


If he means killing transit city altogether then I'm not for it, however it a review mean cost examination, than I am all for it. I believe in not making the same mistakes twice.

 

[Archivist]

He is on the record as proposing a moratorium (he used the word "stop") on all but University and Sheppard. A moratorium places all funding arrangements at risk, and in itself will certainly raise the costs. I do not see that this could be any clearer. Woodbridge_Heights, what in Rossi's statements makes you think that result will be an expansion of service that will be "properly studied and evaluated". What you are in effect saying is that nothing is better than Transit City, which is exactly what you will get -- nothing. We have been down this route before in this city, many times. It is the route to nothing.

 

[Glen]

eddiek, actually, he used the words "stop" and "moratorium", which means his stated intention, apart from the Sheppard LRT and University line extensions, is to stop Transit City. I don't see how that can be stated any clearer.

Whoa, hold on there Hon. Minister of Propaganda and the Status Quo . Before you selectively quote Rossi, and spin his remarks you might want to read what else he has said.

"He’s said he would also sell off public assets — including Toronto Hydro — to tackle the city’s mounting debt, and take a second look at Transit City, a partially funded plan to build seven dedicated streetcar lines across the city.

“I think we need to take a good, hard look at it and put together a plan that makes some fiscal sense for transit in this city,†he said, noting only part of the plan has capital funding and there is no plan to pay to operate the new lines. Although he wouldn’t touch the Sheppard line, which broke ground last fall, “everywhere else we have options, including Eglinton.€

 

[waterloowarrior]

I think there is some logic there. Arterial roads specific purpose is to move traffic as quickly and effeciently as possible. I wouldn't dare cycle on Finch, or Steeles, or Hwy 27, or even Eglinton for that matter. Barring grade separation of the lanes from open traffic. There are a number of primary and secondary roads that parrallel the arterials that could easily accomodate a bike lane, Dupont is a perfect example of this.

If the purpose of arterial roads was simply to move traffic, they wouldn't be surrounded by jobs, homes, and shopping... if people are scared to cycle on these roads, that means improvements should be made, not taken away. Bikes are already a lot slower than cars, and if you make people take some roundabout route it makes cycling even less convenient and less popular (and they will still have to use the arterials at some point to get to their destination anyways).

 

[GraphicMatt]

Plus considering the high-volume of pedestrian deaths already this year, there's certainly a strong argument to be made that Toronto's arterial roads need to be made slower. This will go over like a lead balloon with most voters, but it's a troubling trend.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

To be honest with you all, I wish we just would have done these the first time.

Would have made much more sense. And Cheaper

 

[kettal]

If it means getting the network expansion properly studied and evaluated, and getting it right than emphatically YES

What is the obsession with studying about? How many of the worlds great transit systems were studied for years on end before being built? As far as I can tell, these studies make pretty little books, but not much else.

 

[GenerationW]

Plus considering the high-volume of pedestrian deaths already this year, there's certainly a strong argument to be made that Toronto's arterial roads need to be made slower. This will go over like a lead balloon with most voters, but it's a troubling trend.

For all intents and purposes that's an argument for more cars on our roads.

The only thing a proposal for slower traffic will get is mass ridicule.

 

[js97]

I hope all of you take the 20 minutes or so to hear his speech first hand before jumping to conclusions from reading a not very objective/comprehensive article.

http://www.youtube.com/roccoformayor#p/u/1/IC7Wenc5WP8


I attached part two as it's mostly more platform related.

cheers.

 

[dob467]

Yeah, we should just give Rossi another chance. He's new to politics, he didn't mean what he said to reporters. He's actually pro-transit, pro-bikes, pro-urbanity. Wait now, what did he to before jumping into the race. Right, he worked in politics.