Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

Ack. on the point about the terminal being on smartreit property but didn't they "convince" ttc to move across the street into their land in the first place as the UT article suggested? If at all its more or less another example of how bungled up the negotiations were since they theoretically couldve argued for naming rights as part of the deal. I can't comment on how the details of the deal panned out but perhaps they completely overlooked this detail and smartreit being "smart" played their cards close to their chest and just laid it out on them. I guess to them it was a "Surprise mothaf_ckas!!!" type of revelation. Lol
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's more like I am surprised ST actually bothered. And it may come with risks - esp. if the terminal becomes notorious for say, crime/delinquency. Guess what will get reported?

AoD
Click to expand...
The Leafs robbed people blind for years by taking people's money in exchange for "professional hockey". Air Canada didn't take their name back, possibly because they didn't feel they had much high moral ground in the value for money department.
 
dowlingm said:
The Leafs robbed people blind for years by taking people's money in exchange for "professional hockey". Air Canada didn't take their name back, possibly because they didn't feel they had much high moral ground in the value for money department.
Click to expand...

AC is Montreal-based, I am not sure the Leafs would hold much sway on them naming-wise even if they can play. The fact that they can't conveniently resolved the problem, I suppose.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
AC is Montreal-based...
Click to expand...

Only because they don't have a choice in the matter. They've asked the feds a few times if they could relocate and have been told no. I think WestJet even went to bat for them once in that regard (wanting a level playing ground; so elimination of special AC laws).
 
Avenue said:
I can tolerate the penguins but the registered trademark symbol is really uncalled for.
Click to expand...
Almost kind of like the brand is a registered trademark and should be treated as such regardless of where it's placed. I've been to minor hockey arenas with huge Maple Leaf logos that all have the TM bit beside the logo.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Per above, yeah, Detroit is not a world-class city, I'm sorry to say. Baltimore even less so - and I say that as a big fan of The Wire. Indeed, both are prime examples of post-industrial cities being "left behind."

New York, Chicago, Paris, London - all the cities we aspire to be included with - have regional transit authorities.

And as Mr. F says, we're just so used to our system we don't see the flaws, though we do like to complain about how cities like NYC and Montreal have so much more subway than we do. Our system was designed primarily in the middle of the last century and it worked as long as most of the urban growth was in Toronto; the flat fare, the transfer system, all the commuter trains piling in and out of Union at rush hour, satellite systems in Markham and Mississauga and whatnot serving their limited islands in isolation etc. But too many other suburban centres have grown around the core, there's too much population growth there and too little new infrastructure was added within the core. The model we built to perfection in the 70s, which was at that time a model others studied, is now obsolete. Has been for close to a generation, arguably (its end accelerated by the Harris-era cuts).

I've outlined my thoughts on appropriate threads but in short:
-Metrolinx should be a proper arms-length authority with a reconstituted board that includes a mix of experts, community members and politicians
-It should be funded directly through tolls and other revenue tools and accordingly not answer to any single city, nor the provincial government
-Regional funding and representation gives it a proper mandate to fund both operating (ie fare integration) and capital aspects of transit and to properly prioritize projects (e.g. solicit Toronto's opinion on a LRT or subway for a given corridor but then make the decision based on a combination of that input and hard data, unswayed by what people think they "deserve." I don't mean to slag Scarborough specifically; merely the process.)
-I'm not enough of a governance expert to suggest precisely how the local agencies should work but I see no reason something akin to the MTA shouldn't work here, with local agencies all operating together under a single, larger umbrella. But funding and governance are key to it having a legitimate and functional mandate. Today's Metrolinx goes maybe 40% of the way there.

So,to come back on thread, it might seem "unfair" to Toronto taxpayers they're building this subway to Vaughan, because it's a TTC project. But if you look at the Big Move map, none of the cross-border projects (including the Yonge subway and RER) seem nonsensical or unfair. It's only when you zoom in and see the little lines we've drawn for municipal borders (mostly in the 1970s) that the problems arise. Establish a governing body with pooled funding and those lines disappear again. That's my 5 cents.
Click to expand...
TJ: I was just given a heads-up from another poster that we're espousing the same concepts in different threads. I've spent much time in London (place of birth and many work sojourns back since, family moved back there after twenty years here, I stayed, being the brash North American) New York, Paris and San Diego with many trips to LA.

There's an exquisite term for the civic grouping you refer to: "Super-Region" Since "region" is being used in a unique way in Canada, I'm forced to use the superlative "super" to go a step above. Many nations just use "region", as they don't have the same micro-centric degree of governance when it comes to transit and transportation. Melbourne, for instance, like New York City, is done at the State level, and London and Paris have long ago achieved an unofficial 'city-state' status. It helps, of course, that in almost all developed nations, the federal government is a major, if not *the* major financier.

I've got to catch up to some of your posts and others in this string. As it stands, I feel the GTHA is pretty frozen by snail's pace action on the parts of the Fed and Prov gov'ts, multiplied by the fiefdom spats of muni level entities. This is no way to acquire "World City" status, even though Toronto is very close.

Looking forward to reading more of your posts....
 
Ha - thanks, Steve.

Yes, we use region in a very limited way here. Crikey, there's people who still think they're going de-amalgamate Toronto one day! It's a "MEGAcity" don't you know! Governance goes a long way to how people think about where they are and how they confront problems. Commuting, pertinent to this forum, is not a problem that can be solved by Toronto or Markham or Mississauga because the problem is not at the local scale. Ergo, the need to confront it regionally (or, sure, super-regionally!).

In the meantime we get all of Toronto against Scarborough or all of 416 against the 905 (or at least that's how people often feel) and it makes it hard to fix problems we know are there, and problems for which we know there are solutions.

Many of the criticisms of the Vaughan subway are perfectly fair; it is a "subway to nowhere," relative to something necessary like the DRL. But it's also a way of trying to do new things in the suburbs, where things are perennially messed up and as long as people don't realize it's all ultimately the same big problem, I don't think we'll get as far as we could if we saw things a bit differently.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Ha - thanks, Steve.

Yes, we use region in a very limited way here. Crikey, there's people who still think they're going de-amalgamate Toronto one day! It's a "MEGAcity" don't you know! Governance goes a long way to how people think about where they are and how they confront problems. Commuting, pertinent to this forum, is not a problem that can be solved by Toronto or Markham or Mississauga because the problem is not at the local scale. Ergo, the need to confront it regionally (or, sure, super-regionally!).

In the meantime we get all of Toronto against Scarborough or all of 416 against the 905 (or at least that's how people often feel) and it makes it hard to fix problems we know are there, and problems for which we know there are solutions.

Many of the criticisms of the Vaughan subway are perfectly fair; it is a "subway to nowhere," relative to something necessary like the DRL. But it's also a way of trying to do new things in the suburbs, where things are perennially messed up and as long as people don't realize it's all ultimately the same big problem, I don't think we'll get as far as we could if we saw things a bit differently.
Click to expand...

What we really need is a subway to Vaughan Mills!
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Crikey, there's people who still think they're going de-amalgamate Toronto one day!
Click to expand...
Aha! That's me! Albeit as a consequence of creating a 'super-region' for those matters that transcend civic boundaries, and devolving local matters back down to local councils or 'boroughs'...which would include, local tax rates and how much they want to spend on their 'local bus system'. Best I define super-region: (I really should be able to use the term 'regional' but you realize the dilemma, since it would encompass the present 'regions' and Metro Toronto as we now know it, and already extant civic entities (Mississauga, Vaughan, Toronto Core, Toronto Suburbs, etc) would have local matters dealt with locally, regional matters, like subways, LRT, busways, expressways, major arterial roads, sewers, water, etc, would be the competence of the 'super-region'. And of course, the big one: Metrolinx would be devolved to the 'super-region'. Roughly, I'd delineate the 'super-region' geographically as the 'Golden Horseshoe' albeit that's open to being pared down a bit, since there must be greenbelt to define the outer limits of the region, or LA sprawl (which we're approaching) takes hold.

Transit fares, btw, would be *totally integrated* for base fare transit. And fare by distance, it's the only way to make Presto work across all systems. If a local entity wanted to provide Cadillac buses, then the extra fare would be paid via local taxes if they wish to be part of the greater whole.

I don't know if this is veering off-topic, but if it is, (and I trust other posters to answer) then we'll start a new string on this, or retire to an already existing one. This is a crucial discussion.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top