News   Apr 26, 2024
 521     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 384     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 580     0 

Metrolinx: Bombardier Flexity Freedom & Alstom Citadis Spirit LRVs

The question is what on earth Brown is going to do. So far he doesn't sound supported of any transit projects. All he does is attack his oppositions without a better plan. He isn't going to get a good image by simply opposing the current government. Just like Hudak and John Tory, we'll see if his platform will be any better or it might just flop.
 
The question is what on earth Brown is going to do. So far he doesn't sound supported of any transit projects. All he does is attack his oppositions without a better plan. He isn't going to get a good image by simply opposing the current government. Just like Hudak and John Tory, we'll see if his platform will be any better or it might just flop.

People really care about transit in the GTHA these days, and the PCs are historically anti-transit. This election is the PC's and/or NDP's to lose, but that certainly describes our last election just as well, and they both did a real good job handing the liberals a majority on a diamond platter that time around. Even if the PCs take a relatively progressive attitude towards transit, it's unlikely to hold a candle to the liberals' current plans alone, so anyone who considers transit crucial will be unlikely to consider them. I know a few historically conservative-voting GTA residents who voted liberal last time mainly because, despite not historically supporting transit, their commutes by car have turned into such nightmares that they've seen the light of GO after having been given no alternative, and they're eager to see improvements there--in some cases, this can shift a loyal PC supporter's vote.
 
a bit extreme to put that label on the PC based on just Harris. Historically, PC actually spend on infrastructure. They will go after Green policies and social programs way ahead of infrastructure funds. Let's not forget in what erea the Harris government was ruling under. The liberal Government of Chretien and Martin radically cut spending in provinces forcing all of them to make tough choices. We can all agree that some of them made the wrong ones, like in Quebec, not only did they neglected infrastructure, they gutted the healthcare system.

Saying that the PC is anti-transit is too easy and you're just generalizing. They might have different priorities on transit but you just need to look at what's being done in the US to see that even right wing Republicans spends and subsidize massively in public transit, way more than Canada.
You don't have to go back to Mike Harris to see how anti-transit the PC party has been in the last generation. Just look at the last election. Their platform was about building highways and directing money away from transit projects. They used the moronic "war on the car" rhetoric. Based on their most recent election platform, thinking of them as anti-transit is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to.

It could be that Brown has seen the light and would continue investing heavily into transit, but we don't know yet. I'll be paying close attention.
 
https://twitter.com/BenSpurr/status/842142352613511169


Question to Mods (or people that know this stuff better than me)...on another board I post on that seems to run very similar software to this....when I paste a twiter link it wraps it with commands which make the tweet display and everything in the tweet that is a link clickable....is there a similar command here? The commands on the other board (bigsoccer) are media=twitter and /media
 
Perhaps because I read it early this morning, the article didn't make much sense to me, odd, as the author usually writes very well. I have to question whether he can 'see all ends' on this, although in all fairness, the waters are muddy no matter which angle you view them at. The reader responses all miss what this is about, and Oliver only gave one scant mention of it:
[The warning that Metrolinx was issuing a notice of default]

This isn't about "being sued" (as unfortunately Joe Public thinks it is)...it's an application for an injunction against the 'notice to default'. Pretty much anything being reported at this point is just more of "he said, she said".

What will be the most revealing, unless a publication ban is issued (a distinct likelihood), is the written ruling (if there is in fact one) and why. Neither party has been exemplary on this, and both will welcome that the dirty laundry isn't flapping in the breeze any more than it has been. BBD, in all fairness, are privately held and run, and they're responsible for their many shortcomings. Metrolinx? If this is how they behave under pressure...it goes a long way as to explaining why performance is low compared to some other world-class commuter operations. The faults are mostly in the executive offices.

It's decades past time to revamp the Metrolinx and associated Acts. (again)

Edit to Add: I'm second-guessing my own claims, so some retrospect on this is in order, make of it what you will, the results we're seeing are far from what was envisaged:
GO-Metrolinx merger aims to speed projects
Mar 31, 2009 04:30 AM
ROB FERGUSON
TESS KALINOWSKI
STAFF REPORTERS

In a bid to speed up transit improvements in the Toronto region, the province has evicted all municipal politicians from the board of Metrolinx and merged the transportation planning agency with GO Transit.

Integrating GO with the planning expertise at Metrolinx will help get “shovels in the ground” faster on projects, Transportation Minister Jim Bradley said.

“All you have to do is get on our roadways at the present time and crawl along to see what it’s like to understand the need for these projects moving forward,” Bradley told reporters.

While the takeover of GO has been anticipated since the province set up Metrolinx in 2006, the replacement of politicians on the board with finance, planning and GO board experts suggests that Queen’s Park had grown impatient with the board’s progress on such issues as public-private partnerships and the implementation of a regional fare card.

Former Burlington mayor Rob MacIsaac will continue as part-time Metrolinx board chair under legislation unveiled yesterday while remaining as head of Mohawk College in Hamilton.

But Toronto Mayor David Miller and TTC chair Adam Giambrone, along with six other region chairs and mayors, will be replaced by experts more “geared” to getting transit lines built, Bradley said.

Hired as an adviser to lead the transition to the new board is outgoing Torstar Corp. chief executive Robert Prichard. Prichard steps down from Torstar, parent company of the Toronto Star, on May 6.

Bradley said the new law, called the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area Transit Implementation Act, would provide more integrated transit service around the region. Municipal transit systems like the TTC will not be included.

Insiders said the new board structure will limit “turf wars” between politicians protecting their local interests and hampering better links between municipal transit systems.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, who is among the ousted board members, said the board didn’t have enough authority.

“You need an independent board to make the decisions that have to be made for the good of the people,” she said. “That’s who we’re here to serve. They’ll have a board with power that can get the job done.”

At a Feb. 17 Toronto Star editorial board meeting, Miller had warned “it would be really unwise strategically” to remove politicians from the Metrolinx board.

“We understand the connections between transportation and planning and the provincial government and environmental objectives. It’s a unique skill set that nobody from the private sector could have,” Miller said. [...]
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/data/200903310430.shtml
 
Last edited:

"Metrolinx has said that the company has been consistently delayed in producing vehicles, alleging it has been unable to build even the first of them. Bombardier alleges that the timeline works to the advantage of Metrolinx, whose projects have been delayed. ..."

I hope Bombardier knows this isn't a valid defence. Either you meet your contractual obligations or you don't. What the other side is ready for doesn't really matter; you sue them for storage of the now complete vehicles or get them to officially request a change to the terms.

Continued from above:
"... It claims the first vehicle is ready and the agency is trying to offload the chance of financial penalties if the Crosstown LRT doesn’t open as scheduled."

This is a valid complaint if "ready" is as per the definition in the contract/followup meetings.
 
the CTV report on their late news last night indicated a judge will decide "next week" if the vehicle is "ready" for delivery by the definitions contained in the contract.....hope they are right so we can stop speculating on this.
 
...Either you meet your contractual obligations or you don't. What the other side is ready for doesn't really matter; you sue them for storage of the now complete vehicles or get them to officially request a change to the terms...This is a valid complaint if "ready" is as per the definition in the contract/followup meetings.
But here's the rub: Do you have the text of that agreement on which to base your statements?

And no-one is suing anyone in this action, it's an injunction against invoking a clause as best as I can determine. Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong...

the CTV report on their late news last night indicated a judge will decide "next week" if the vehicle is "ready" for delivery by the definitions contained in the contract.....hope they are right so we can stop speculating on this.
Exactly...there's endless speculation without even having the contract available for view.
 
I don't know...is software an issue on the first pilot the folks in KW received?

from what I last heard during bbr's PR stunt, it was a widely reported that there was no software developed at the time to make the vehicle move forward...it only was able to turn on and move its panto up and down...
 
from what I last heard during bbr's PR stunt, it was a widely reported that there was no software developed at the time to make the vehicle move forward...it only was able to turn on and move its panto up and down...
i thought that was the claim that ML made about the pilot they refused to take delivery of for Crosstown....was not aware the same assertion was made about the KW pilot.....if ML refused delivery on that basis, why would KW accept delivery? (could be different contract language about what is a deliverable pilot...but you would think that there would be some common standards there).
 

Back
Top