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 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look: I'm not saying it'll last, but at this point the 33-vs-Olivia's-60 figure is looking awfully "Larry O'Brien" terminal. And considering that Olivia Chow's no Jim Watson "moderate", image-wise, and that at least some of Rob Ford's remaining 33% ought to be a generic right-of-centre, less-government-spending vote as opposed to full-bore Ford Nation...at some point or another, the Fords are *really* going to choke upon the gaffes-upon-gaffes. And remember: the campaign's not "officially" on yet--just imagine how these goofs will handle debates, etc *now*, let alone questioners from the public...

I know it's long been an anti-Ford fantasy; but should Rob Ford win again, he could well wind up in single digits at this rate. *For real*. (And especially if there's a sane, viable right-of-centre dissident running.)
 
adma said:
And remember: the campaign's not "officially" on yet--just imagine how these goofs will handle debates, etc *now*, let alone questioners from the public...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Chow hasn't put out any type of platform yet either. All she's done is say she supports having a federal initiative for city's infrastructure. Polls are pointless when we don't know her views on what to do with the Gardiner for example - does she want to fix it, bury it, remove it, toll it?

Yes the Ford's are a tag team of gaffes waiting to happen, but every once in a while one of their rants starts in a good spot. The whole boardwalk pub incident last election comes to mind. Ya ya, he got sued for it, but he was right, why were we renewing a deal with someone who runs such a horrible restaurant. Bussin, rightfully so, got turfed for it.
 
junior43 said:
Ya ya, he got sued for it, but he was right, why were we renewing a deal with someone who runs such a horrible restaurant. Bussin, rightfully so, got turfed for it.
Click to expand...
If the deal was so terrible, why did Ford vote in favour of renewing a similar deal for the Western Beaches - and another one for Toronto Island?
 
Yeah, isn't Rob good friends with the guy who has a strangle hold on all food sold in the western waterfront and if I remember correctly, Ford approved that contract. (without the proper open bidding process) Yet for the Beaches, it was a whole different story. What's up with that? If Ford was more consistent, people might start taking him more seriously. Nobody likes hypocrisy, well, accept for Ford Nation, it would seem.
 
Last edited:
It was only in Toronto Life that I gleaned the possibility that Jennifer Keesmaat's hire as chief planner might have more to do w/the six-degrees-of-separation fact of her husband's high-school-football past--it's just fortuitous that she's actually credible at what she's doing...
 
Electrify said:
1. People in Los Angeles, Calgary, Portland, Dallas choose to take LRT over driving all the time. And these cities are far more car oriented than Toronto. In Europe, LRT has provided rapid transit for cities like Frankfurt, Hanover, and Amsterdam.

2. That said, I am hesitant to refer to these new lines as LRTs. While they are certainly a step above the current streetcar network, they are currently planned with too many stops to be considered rapid transit. They are more like European tramways like those found in London and Paris, than true rapid transit LRT lines. Unfortunately thanks to people like Ford, the debate has devolved into a strawman of subways versus light rail, rather than what KIND of light rail we should be building.

3. The problem with subways is not only are they too expensive to build unless there is enough density, but that they are getting too expensive to build PERIOD! The only places which are constructing new subways are in Asian cities with poor labour conditions. Everywhere else cities are building light rail or are expanding on their current network at or above grade. Besides the current subway projects in Toronto, the Vaughan extension and the Eglinton tunnel, I am willing to bet that most rapid transit expansion will not occur underground. This includes the Yonge north extension and the Downtown Relief Line.
Click to expand...

Mostly agree with your points above, except for the last part of point three. New York is building the Second Avenue Subway and Los Angeles is about to re-start work on the Purple Line. You're correct that the subway boom in the West has ended.

I disagree about your assessment on the DRL. I can't see it being built without most of it being underground, and it has the most political momentum in the last year than it had since the 1960s. I think that the DRL and Yonge North will be the last heavy rail subways built in Toronto, though. The only other heavy rail rapid transit in the States right now is Washington Silver Line, which is mostly in a freeway median with a few elevated segments.

I also think it was a real shame that Spadina North was built entirely underground, with the exception of the last 300 metres into Vaughan Centre, the alignment should have been at or above grade north of York U.
 
Last edited:
ShonTron said:
Mostly agree with your points above, except for the last part of point three. New York is building the Second Avenue Subway and Los Angeles is about to re-start work on the Purple Line. You're correct that the subway boom in the West has ended.

I disagree about your assessment on the DRL. I can't see it being built without most of it being underground, and it has the most political momentum in the last year than it had since the 1960s. I think that the DRL and Yonge North will be the last heavy rail subways built in Toronto, though. The only other heavy rail rapid transit in the States right now is Washington Silver Line, which is mostly in a freeway median with a few elevated segments.

I also think it was a real shame that Spadina North was built entirely underground, with the exception of the last 300 metres into Vaughan Centre, the alignment should have been at or above grade north of York U.
Click to expand...

LA is about to start work on extending the Purple? Last I heard it was in the "long term" plans, so it is great to hear that it is going ahead.

While it is great that New York is building the SAS, it unfortunately illustrates my point. As-is, it is a spur of the yellow RNQ line which cuts through Central Park before going up a short stretch of Second Ave, it is not the full Second Ave subway line. Despite this relatively short length and much of it being constructed under a park, the line is going to take 9 years to complete and cost (*raises pinky*) $17 BILLION DOLLARS!

I know people think I'm crazy when I bring it up, but I think we may have to accept an elevated route through downtown. Unless we pull a China, it appears to be the only way to get rapid transit in place across downtown at a reasonable cost and time. If it is built underground, I am willing to bet that only the eastern portion will be built, and getting across the west end of downtown will continue to be a nightmare. Perhaps a DRL in place of where the Gardiner is today could be an easy sell.

Then again, perhaps the transit taxes will bring in enough money that we can build new subways quickly and efficiently. If that is the case, I will gladly admit that I am mistaken in my predictions.

And yes, I absolutely agree that north of Steeles, the Spadina extension should be elevated. Could have saved a good billion at least by going that route.
 
Electrify said:
Perhaps a DRL in place of where the Gardiner is today could be an easy sell.
Click to expand...

In my ultimate blue sky planning fantasy, we bury the Gardiner, but while were down there we also build the central portion of the DRL there as well. Save some cash on all the tunneling for the DRL. Everyones wins - new, updated -and buried - Gardiner, a new and improved lakeshore blvd and a new DRL with some savings by combining the projects. Still huge cash, but it gives us one new vital artery and improves greatly two existing ones. Plus, you could throw in an LRT or Streetcar on lakeshore while we're there....

Of course, it'll never happen.......the price tag alone is too intimidating, nevermind the traffic chaos for probably a decade while it's built.
 
I can't speak for the Western beaches, I live in the east end - and haven't tried their food. Like most locals, I've eaten at the Boardwalk Pub once. Food's overpriced and terrible to boot.....You can walk ten minutes and get better food for cheaper at half a dozen locations.
 
re: Gardiner and DRL

Tying both together might offer you some savings, but there are issues such as alignment to consider; plus you risk one project because of inability to come to a decision on the other half.

re: food

The "problem", if there is one - is that the location offers a monopoly, and mixing in the city's desire for a constant source of cash basically translates into bad food (the alternative of providing multiple vendors on the spot, while desirable, might contravene other goals for the area) It's really not that different from the NPS call for proposal, which basically netted Hero Burgers (!!) as the highest bidder, and the city basically have to go back to the drawing boards.

AoD
 
Electrify said:
And yes, I absolutely agree that north of Steeles, the Spadina extension should be elevated. Could have saved a good billion at least by going that route.
Click to expand...

I do not know how elevating the line north of Steeles could have saved a billion. The portals and a bridge over the 407 alone would have cost plenty, and unless VMC station stays elevated, you're going to have to pay for another set of portals to bring the line underground.
Tunneling makes the most sense in this area, if the line gets extended to Maple, then at grade/elevated makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Ford talks about an ongoing trial on his radio show yesterday .... http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._offers_opinion_on_richard_kachkar_trial.html
Criminal defence lawyer Leora Shemesh was surprised to hear Mayor Rob Ford’s voice when a listener called in to Newstalk 1010 to discuss the ongoing Richard Kachkar trial.
Shemesh was a panelist on the legal round table of Closing Arguments with Steven Skurka, a program on the Newstalk 1010 radio. The panel was discussing the trial when Ford called in on air.
“I just think that it’s perplexing to have the mayor of the city calling in about this issue, particularly because it’s in front of a jury and he knew that, but more so because he seemed to be uneducated about not criminally responsible and what that means,” Shemesh said.

Out of concern for prejudicing the jury as it’s about to start deliberations, the Star declines to repeat the mayor’s views on what Kachkar’s fate should be. But the fact that he weighed in at all at this critical moment generated criticism among defence lawyers.

“It is truly astonishing that the Mayor of Toronto espouses such a gross misunderstanding of the law and mental illness,” said Toronto lawyer Sean Robichaud. “There is also something unsettling and disrespectful to the justice system when a politician of his position provides his opinion on a verdict that he seems to know little about, the night before the jury is set to deliberate.”

Both Crown and defence agree Kachkar, 46, on trial for first-degree murder and dangerous driving, was the person who killed police Sgt. Ryan Russell, 35, with a snowplow on a late-night street rampage ending on Jan. 12, 2011.

They disagree on whether his mental illness made him incapable of appreciating what he was doing was wrong; his trial hinges on that question.
Ontario Superior Court Judge Ian MacDonnell began his instructions to the Kachkar jury on Friday, after both sides had delivered their closing arguments. The jury’s deliberations were expected to begin late Monday.

Before discussing the case, Skurka offered a warning to any potential jurors who may have been listening, telling them to turn the program off, Shemesh said. “In hindsight, maybe we all shouldn’t have been talking about it,” she said.
She thought it was “politically incorrect” for the mayor to call in. Ford’s office didn’t return a request for comment late Sunday.
“After Mayor Ford called, I think we were all a little surprised and then we just moved to the next topic,” Shemesh said.
“It was interesting, particularly because he was the only person who called in and it’s your mayor. It was a little surprising.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top