News   Dec 04, 2023
Proposal Jumps to Dual 59-Storey Towers at Eglinton and Mount Pleasant
 1.6K     1 
News   Dec 04, 2023
IMMIX Fuses Modern Living and Historical Clock Tower by College Station
 1.7K     3 
News   Dec 04, 2023
News Roundup for December 4, 2023
 718     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I am sure there are juicy penalties attached to the contract - no politician would savour the prospect of having to pay multimillion dollars worth of penalities, getting grilled by the media and has nothing to show for it. Then again, it's Ford, so who knows - rationality isn't his strong suit.

AoD
Click to expand...

How about the $47 million squandered when they cancelled Transit City. Hardly a peep from the media.
 
Armbruster said:
Last year, the CPP agreed to buy a 10% stake for $894 million, implying a total value of about $9 billion for the highway, or three times the original sale value (despite a recession and two stock market crashes - I defy anyone to find another security that tripled in value from pre-crash 1999 to post-crash 2010 [okay, Apple Inc., but you know what I mean]).
Click to expand...

There are tons, varied industries RIM, Nike, lulu, MC, etc... . But to relate to similiar products, Brookfield asset (BAM).

Was a a good decision back in 1999? Depends on your perspective, political stripes aside, you need to also capitalize improvements, maintenance, and obvious administrative costs over the 10 years. It's not just a hold and buy operation. Calling it a 'fire' sale is definately more politically charged then reflective of reality. Selling the TPA would be a mistake because of it's revenue generating properties. Would the 407 have been a toll road if it was in the hands of the government?



Fish&Chips said:
How about the $47 million squandered when they cancelled Transit City. Hardly a peep from the media.
Click to expand...

That's a little presumptious, Transit City work is being diverted,The firm still has/wants business in the new configuration/ subway work. On a related note, Transit city is second rate transportation for suburbia residents. - I guess the NDP like it like that... all are equal, some are more equal than others?
 
Last edited:
js97 said:
Transit city is second rate transportation for suburbia residents. - I guess the NDP like it like that... all are equal, some are more equal than others?
Click to expand...

Good god! That's not pragmatism, it's just cleverly disguised class warfare!
 
js97 said:
There are tons, varied industries RIM, Nike, lulu, MC, etc... . But to relate to similiar products, Brookfield asset (BAM).

Was a a good decision back in 1999? Depends on your perspective, political stripes aside, you need to also capitalize improvements, maintenance, and obvious administrative costs over the 10 years. It's not just a hold and buy operation. Calling it a 'fire' sale is definately more politically charged then reflective of reality. Selling the TPA would be a mistake because of it's revenue generating properties. Would the 407 have been a toll road if it was in the hands of the government?





That's a little presumptious, Transit City work is being diverted,The firm still has/wants business in the new configuration/ subway work. On a related note, Transit city is second rate transportation for suburbia residents. - I guess the NDP like it like that... all are equal, some are more equal than others?
Click to expand...

Presumtious? Not at all. That's the actual amount so far that the province is clawing back from the city. Way to go Rob!
 
js97 said:
Transit city is second rate transportation for suburbia residents.
Click to expand...
Transit City is appropriate capacity transportation for lower population density areas. If suburbanites want high-capacity transit, they should live in high population density locations.

I guess the NDP like it like that... all are equal, some are more equal than others?
Click to expand...
You're asking that more per-passenger money be spent on suburbanites than those in denser areas -- how exactly is that fair?
 
Tulse said:
Transit City is appropriate capacity transportation for lower population density areas. If suburbanites want high-capacity transit, they should live in high population density locations.


You're asking that more per-passenger money be spent on suburbanites than those in denser areas -- how exactly is that fair?
Click to expand...

Easier said then done. Housing prices are substantially lower in the Toronto burbds then 'high population density locations'. Further more, a speedy public transit really is the best form of subsidized housing program for those that can't afford to live in the 'dense' communities close to RAPID public transporation. It gives those individuals that are capable of living in their own homes, but still be able to access the rest of the city. Isn't that what social services is all about, allow an individual the equal opportunity to travel and work within a large city? Build more public housing and it will only ghettoize and keep people trapped to their homes.


Public transit as a concept and entity is not supposed to be fair. 'Downtowners' essentially pay a premiun to go much shorter distances than suburbintes, but because of the lower costs for a suburbinite, it keeps their cars off the road. Do you really think people in Scarborough and Etobicoke will get out of their cars and into a 'street car' if they have to travel travel vase distances? Have you taken the King/Queen street cars? If you look at functional cities with world class public transportation systems, do pictures of buses networks or LRTs come to mind, or has it always been the New Yorks, Tokyos, Parises, and Madrids of the world?


It's unfortunate subways have been so politized... People forget that the NDP was once about subways (Eglinton Line) before Harris scrapped it.
 
Last edited:
js97 said:
Public transit as a concept and entity is not supposed to be fair.
Click to expand...
You were the one who raised the issue by complaining about the NDP's alleged notion of "equality". And for the record, I agree -- public transit is not about "fairness", or "equality".

If you look at functional cities with world class public transportation systems, do pictures of buses networks or LRTs come to mind, or has it always been the New Yorks, Tokyos, Parises, and Madrids of the world?
Click to expand...
This kind of non-argument is absurd, and seems to reflect some kind of "world-class envy" rather than principled, evidence-based reasoning.

Sure, subways are cool, but they are also extremely expensive, and not always the most appropriate solution given population density. And these days, which are no longer the heyday of large publicly-funded city building (like those other cities experienced), expense matters. No amount of pointing to other cities will change that, or make subways more practical for the Transit City routes.
 
Tulse said:
You were the one who raised the issue by complaining about the NDP's alleged notion of "equality". And for the record, I agree -- public transit is not about "fairness", or "equality".


This kind of non-argument is absurd, and seems to reflect some kind of "world-class envy" rather than principled, evidence-based reasoning.

Sure, subways are cool, but they are also extremely expensive, and not always the most appropriate solution given population density. And these days, which are no longer the heyday of large publicly-funded city building (like those other cities experienced), expense matters. No amount of pointing to other cities will change that, or make subways more practical for the Transit City routes.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with 'world class' envy and everything to do with pragmatism and forward thinking. Have you travelled to Scarborough or Etobicoke on public transit, other than subways? Have you witnessed the ridership squeezed into the 190 rocket, the 34 C eglinton? Have you seen the increase in density (development) and ridership on the Shepperd subway in the last few years?

Do you think the variable costs to operate 3 subway carts (3 operators) are actually more than to operate 30 buses ? What about the marginal benefit to citizens for shortened trips?


When they built Yonge and Danforth lines, there was far from enough 'capacity' to justify the costs. You don't build public transit for the present, or near present, you build it for the Future. Like any good infrastructure project, if you wait until there is enough demand, you're already too late.
 
js97 said:
It has nothing to do with 'world class' envy and everything to do with pragmatism and forward thinking. Have you travelled to Scarborough or Etobicoke on public transit, other than subways? Have you witnessed the ridership squeezed into the 190 rocket, the 34 C eglinton? Have you seen the increase in density (development) and ridership on the Shepperd subway in the last few years?

Do you think the variable costs to operate 3 subway carts (3 operators) are actually more than to operate 30 buses ? What about the marginal benefit to citizens for shortened trips?


When they built Yonge and Danforth lines, there was far from enough 'capacity' to justify the costs. You don't build public transit for the present, or near present, you build it for the Future. Like any good infrastructure project, if you wait until there is enough demand, you're already too late.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. As I've repeated before, there was nothing more myopic in Toronto's transit plans than Transit City.

We live in a city growing and bursting at the seams, attracting nearly a hundred thousand immigrants to the area a year, some (if not most) live, work or play in the city. Someone telling us that LRT will serve these needs for the next 2 decades is simply being disingenuous.

Remember, these were the same people who told us 2 decades ago that a DRL is a necessity going forward. Today they're singing a different tune.
 
Sure, all of what you say is true, but one also builds what one can afford to build now. Surface routes will always be cheaper than digging. And the thing that is most frustrating is that, as imperfect as it may have been, Transit City was funded -- the money was there (for the most part). Subway advocates let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and instead of a solid addition to the Toronto transit system serving a variety of under-serviced areas, we have a pie-in-the-sky notion of a privately-funded subway that will never be built, and a subterranean LRT that will cost more than it needed to. How is that progress? How is the current situation better than Transit City?
 
Tulse said:
Sure, all of what you say is true, but one also builds what one can afford to build now. Surface routes will always be cheaper than digging. And the thing that is most frustrating is that, as imperfect as it may have been, Transit City was funded -- the money was there (for the most part). Subway advocates let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and instead of a solid addition to the Toronto transit system serving a variety of under-serviced areas, we have a pie-in-the-sky notion of a privately-funded subway that will never be built, and a subterranean LRT that will cost more than it needed to. How is that progress? How is the current situation better than Transit City?
Click to expand...

LRT in Toronto was simply a gout du jour that Giambrone and Miller acquired while backpacking through Europe. Sure, European cities relying on LRT are what? 300,000 in population; while those big cities building it are simply filling in gaps in their already impressive subway network. We are trying to act like a small European city by relying on LRT. Our pathetically small subway system is already crumbling, let alone after we dump a few more million riders into it.

I'm not a proponent of the Eglinton LRT tunnel as its cost is even higher than a regular subway, but it will provide uninterrupted rapid transit to a large section of Toronto. Sheppard will eventually get extended.. I simply do not see an LRT surfacing again, unless it's built separately from the subway. That coupled with a DRL running down Don Mills from Sheppard and back up in the west will close the major gaps and bring reliable transit to the majority of Toronto. Then we can start thinking about LRT lines to connect the dots. Once we have a subway system that can handle all those additional passengers.
 
Quite a day at City Hall today. Ford seemed nervous and confused and certainly out of his depth: he had no direct answers for questions except to repeat catch phrases sprinkled with personal anecdotes.
Almost a sentence couldn't go by without use of the word "Taxpayers", along with all the usual overboiled stuffage: stay the course, gravy, efficiencies not cuts, respect for taxpayers, we have to do what the taxpayers want, inherited this mess, 7.4 million, stay the course, gravy, efficiencies....

He would not answer direct yes or no questions, and when not blaming councillors for not coming up with better solutions to the current intrigues (and then when alternately asking councillor's to offer them impromptu, out of line), he kept oddly repeating that the responsibility for final decisions lay with the taxpayers. Deferring.
In the time I was watching, I did not see a believably competent rhetorical, analytical nor factual answer to any questions from the mayor.
 
Last edited:
Filip said:
Couldn't have said it better myself. As I've repeated before, there was nothing more myopic in Toronto's transit plans than Transit City.

We live in a city growing and bursting at the seams, attracting nearly a hundred thousand immigrants to the area a year, some (if not most) live, work or play in the city. Someone telling us that LRT will serve these needs for the next 2 decades is simply being disingenuous.

Remember, these were the same people who told us 2 decades ago that a DRL is a necessity going forward. Today they're singing a different tune.
Click to expand...

Where are we getting the money to build first-class subways into the suburbs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top