News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 162     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 353     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 208     0 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

I don't really find it funny that the Liberals are accused of "buying votes" when the Conservatives do the EXACT SAME THING.
 
innsertnamehere said:
If anything it has to do more with the Feds and Province both trying to secure Vaughan seats, and York region being one stubborn bastard repeatedly asking for the subway, something which our mayor is incapable of. )
Click to expand...

Its too bad the councillors in the downtown area have not repeatedly asked for the DRL
 
Tulse said:
When Transit City was released, many people argued that its main failing was no DRL. But it is inarguable that Transit City would have brought rapid transit to a far greater portion of the city, and far more quickly, than the current process.
Click to expand...
What is inarguable is that the architects of Transit City (with $8 billion available to spend on anything) were either incompetent or negligent in not addressing our main priority, so any plan without a DRL can only be called an epic failure. But if you want to keep defending the indefensible, be my guest.

The current process may have happened in a similar fashion no matter what. Smitherman campaigned on a B-D extension much harder than Ford did.

rbt said:
Your right. Miller lobbied for Sheppard money for a few years first. They gave him Spadina money instead, and a provincial minister's family made a killing building townhomes.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what Miller lobbied for in 2004/05, or even if he did. Hard to find much info online anyway.

Palma said:
Its too bad the councillors in the downtown area have not repeatedly asked for the DRL
Click to expand...
Perhaps most of them would rather not have a DRL at all?
 
GenerationW said:
any plan without a DRL can only be called an epic failure
Click to expand...

If you want to think it black and white, I suppose that's true. Yes, the DRL is desperately needed, and yes, a lack of DRL was a major failing of Transit City. But Transit City's goal was largely to bring transit to underserved areas, and it did that far better than the current (lack of) plan. So in that sense it is inarguably better than the present situation. Not perfect, just better.
 
Tulse said:
If you want to think it black and white, I suppose that's true. Yes, the DRL is desperately needed, and yes, a lack of DRL was a major failing of Transit City. But Transit City's goal was largely to bring transit to underserved areas, and it did that far better than the current (lack of) plan. So in that sense it is inarguably better than the present situation. Not perfect, just better.
Click to expand...
The problem with TC was it was Miller's vision as much a a plan. Because of that, it was all LRT when some parts should have been subway. (Eglinton to Pearson and Kingston/Hwy2A) But what I find funny was that NO ONE had an issue with TC until Ford brought it up.

The biggest weight lies with Miller. None of the last 4 years happens if he planned to needs instead of his vision. And, if he didn't decide not to run again. That is a big part of this no one talks about.
 
I feel that Transit City for Miller was more about social change than it was about transit change. His big goal was to revolutionize how the cities poor live, seen through his Public housing rebuilds such as Regent Park, his "tower in the park" program thing, and the LRT lines to try and improve commute times for the poor from these buildings. As Time went on it started to take on a more transit oriented stance (As seen from the burying of Eglinton and the escalating costs as project scope rose) , but initially Miller had social change in mind when designing Transit City.
 
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton said:
what I find funny was that NO ONE had an issue with TC until Ford brought it up.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's correct -- there was plenty of debate about the details of TC, even by "supporters". But I think you're forgetting that, flawed or not, TC was the first time in a very long while that a comprehensive plan for TTC expansion was put forward, and one that was affordable, reasonably achievable, and could be built in stages. In light of that, it's not too surprising that people were excited. What we have now is a mayor who is pushing bits and pieces of expensive projects, while Metrolinx is still running largely on parts of TC. This, needless to say, is far worse than having an overall plan.
 
Tulse said:
I don't think that's correct -- there was plenty of debate about the details of TC, even by "supporters". But I think you're forgetting that, flawed or not, TC was the first time in a very long while that a comprehensive plan for TTC expansion was put forward, and one that was affordable, reasonably achievable, and could be built in stages. In light of that, it's not too surprising that people were excited. What we have now is a mayor who is pushing bits and pieces of expensive projects, while Metrolinx is still running largely on parts of TC. This, needless to say, is far worse than having an overall plan.
Click to expand...

The thing was, there was no real public debate. I remember growing up in Oakville back in the mid 2000s and people just being happy there was transit expansion. No one was talking about subways at all. There was debate, on the internet, but TC was not this controversial 7 years ago.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I feel that Transit City for Miller was more about social change than it was about transit change. His big goal was to revolutionize how the cities poor live, seen through his Public housing rebuilds such as Regent Park, his "tower in the park" program thing, and the LRT lines to try and improve commute times for the poor from these buildings. As Time went on it started to take on a more transit oriented stance (As seen from the burying of Eglinton and the escalating costs as project scope rose) , but initially Miller had social change in mind when designing Transit City.
Click to expand...

I agree 100 percent. It should not be all about that. Toronto needed an expansion badly, but Miller wanted his social experiment. And some people for ridiculous reason hate anything to do helping the poor. But Eglinton should have been a Subway. Not necessarily underground, but Heavy Rail.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
The problem with TC was it was Miller's vision as much a a plan. Because of that, it was all LRT when some parts should have been subway. (Eglinton to Pearson and Kingston/Hwy2A) But what I find funny was that NO ONE had an issue with TC until Ford brought it up.

The biggest weight lies with Miller. None of the last 4 years happens if he planned to needs instead of his vision. And, if he didn't decide not to run again. That is a big part of this no one talks about.
Click to expand...

Kingston road should have been a subway?
 
Tulse said:
And if the money was there it would have been. As it was, the Crosstown tunnels and stations were designed to allow relatively easy conversion to subway if/when the money and demand are there.
Click to expand...

Someone here mentioned that Eglinton's specs (specifically the grade for climbing hills) is not doable with the current HRT subway system.

So we get an expensive streetcar in a tunnel essentially, unable to be converted into HRT when the need arises (probably within 20-30 years).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top