Who from Kipling and Bloor wants to go to Kennedy? That doesn't mean the line should be chopped in half at Yonge.
|
|
|
Candidates and their subway plans... The Star tells you which one is more credible
- Thread starter Ansem
- Start date
Who from Kipling and Bloor wants to go to Kennedy? That doesn't mean the line should be chopped in half at Yonge.
Justin10000
Banned
So you admit you do treat the RTES as some sacred document, and STC is the centre of the universe, even though you live in Ottawa, and really not going to use the system in Toronto ever?
Considering I have constantly stated I support subways(where justified, not where SOS wants them), calling me a hypocrite is a stretch. But then, you seem to call everyone who is not with you, or SOS a hypocrite. No wonder Steve Munro does not post here anymore. You, and others have an abrasive style of debating!
It IS outdated. Because you guys somehow think because you connect 2 nodes, it will attract enough riders to justify a subway. It's a silly, and outdated. This is same plan that wants to build high density in Heart Lake! It's a great way to fill developers pockets, and nothing more.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
A detailed report on the SELRT from TTC versus a short paragraph about the Sheppard Subway extension by SOS. Until you create detailed reports that rival the TC reports, no one will take you seriously.
kEiThZ
Superstar
At this point I say, why stop the SELRT? I have great faith in the people of Toronto. When they see the price tag (especially the final bill they get) and how little it does for city-wide transit, I am willing to bet that further LRT plans will go quietly into the night. If they wanted to sell LRT, they should have started on a high profile corridor like Eglinton. When this thing comes in over a billion bucks and terminates at a random stop like Conlins, it'll automatically be labelled a white elephant. All the candidates understand that. That's why they are trying to run from TC.
TC is only viable as a plan, if all of it gets built. But if that does not happen, it's a pretty terrible idea actually, since it does not loan itself to downgrading or downsizing very easily. Imagine being mayor when they open Finch West and Sheppard East on your watch. People are going to be wondering what we spent a billion and a half dollars for, on trams that only benefit a handful of residents (even most of Malvern bound for STC will still be using buses). Imagine having to explain to Scarborough residents that after spending a billion bucks most of them won't see any substantial improvements in travel times. Or that Finch West's great accomplishment is that you now save a few minutes on a trip to the races. That'll go down well with the average voter I'm sure......
The only part that makes TC somewhat politically palatable is Eglinton. But again as they truncate the outer portions and it starts to look more and more like subways, people are going to be wondering why it wasn't subway to begin with. But at least Eglinton is less distasteful than the other lines. So that's why Smitherman's kept it. But the slightest slip-up and it'll be over. A few accidents or car stall at intersections, protests blocking the tracks (like native protests on VIA rails or Tamils blocking the Gardiner), or inclement weather slowing things down and even LRT on Eglinton will start to look like a bad idea.
TC is only viable as a plan, if all of it gets built. But if that does not happen, it's a pretty terrible idea actually, since it does not loan itself to downgrading or downsizing very easily. Imagine being mayor when they open Finch West and Sheppard East on your watch. People are going to be wondering what we spent a billion and a half dollars for, on trams that only benefit a handful of residents (even most of Malvern bound for STC will still be using buses). Imagine having to explain to Scarborough residents that after spending a billion bucks most of them won't see any substantial improvements in travel times. Or that Finch West's great accomplishment is that you now save a few minutes on a trip to the races. That'll go down well with the average voter I'm sure......
The only part that makes TC somewhat politically palatable is Eglinton. But again as they truncate the outer portions and it starts to look more and more like subways, people are going to be wondering why it wasn't subway to begin with. But at least Eglinton is less distasteful than the other lines. So that's why Smitherman's kept it. But the slightest slip-up and it'll be over. A few accidents or car stall at intersections, protests blocking the tracks (like native protests on VIA rails or Tamils blocking the Gardiner), or inclement weather slowing things down and even LRT on Eglinton will start to look like a bad idea.
Last edited:
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
Funny how SOS complains all day and night on this site but says nothing to politicians and transit planners! Complaining to me and members such as Justin10000 won't get you subways
So you expect a group of ordinary citizens to undertake a multi-million dollar study, or you won't take us seriously? Yeah, ok.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
If you cannot undertake a study that heavily critiques the TC reports, then no one would listen to you! Which one has more weight...a detailed report or whiners on a site?
kEiThZ
Superstar
You are saying we haven't. We don't publicize everything we do. But we have reached out to all the candidates and had referrals with some, with hopefully even more to come. In the current political climate it's really not all that hard for a group presenting an alternative to TC to get heard by the candidates. That's what Steve Munro was afraid off to begin with....that we'd "confuse" the issues.
But I'll stand by our original goals. We are here to educate the public about the alternatives. Hence the website for example. The candidates will follow the public.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
NO...the candidates would support most or all of TC!
kEiThZ
Superstar
I'd like to see Miller's million dollar study before he proposed it as a fairly vague election idea. The first SOS brochure had more detail than his campaign platform on transit.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Hahaha. Keep believing that. Have you even been paying attention to the campaign platforms or reading the rest of this thread?
Last I checked even Metrolinx doesn't support all (or even most - depending on your definition of "deferral") of Transit City. I'll bet that they are waiting for a candidate they can re-negotiate transit plans with.
Anybody but Pantalone and Transit City as envisioned by Miller is finished....if Metrolinx hasn't killed off Miller's vision already.
Last edited:
Dan416
Senior Member
LRTistas: The Mad Navigator, Justin10000, Juan_Lennon416, nfitz, W.K. Lis
Why aren't you banned yet? I'm so sick of the whole bunch of you. Mindless sheep.
Why aren't you banned yet? I'm so sick of the whole bunch of you. Mindless sheep.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
You really believe that crap huh? Come the first day in office, candidates could easily change their minds and keep TC!
Where did I ever say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. I treat the RTES as a plan that was actually grounded in PLANNING, not in POLITICS. TC is a political plan, and a pretty bad one at that. It's social planning meets politics. The transit rationale behind it is an after-thought, and it shows, because it's a very weak rationale.
Same thing as the first Ottawa LRT plan. It was deeply routed in politics and developer incentives. The city and the council smartened up, and now Ottawa has a transit plan that is actually rooted in sensible transit planning, and it shows. The ridership and capacity benefits are easy to see, and so are the economic and social benefits. They didn't have to stretch, manipulate, and nearly downright lie in order to sell the feasibility of the plan. And that's how a transit plan should be. A transit plan should need a multi-million dollar PR campaign to tout the benefits. If you have to try that hard, chances are the benefits of the plan aren't as good as you're making them out to be.
Considering I have constantly stated that I support LRTs (where justified, and using the right type of LRT), calling me Anti-LRT and Anti-Transit (as you have many times in the past) is a stretch. But then, you seem to call everyone who does not support LRT in-median across all of Toronto Anti-LRT, or Anti-Transit. No wonder this section of UT has turned into a constant debate over the same thing. You, and others have an abraive style of debating!
And you seriously think that by placing an in-median LRT along a suburban arterial that it will turn it into a European avenue, lined with cafés, bistros, and mid-rise apartments? If the nodal concept is unrealistic, than the avenuization concept is a pipe dream. And you don't think developers would benefit from building mid-rises along the entire length of an avenue? Developers will benefit in some form or another from whatever ends up being built, it's just a matter of in what densities and where.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
Why aren't you banned? You talk about a plan to build a massive subway network without any solid information. 'Oh the demand is there papa, I know it is' thinking is stupid!