Finch West Line 6 LRT

[T3G]

digress, this thread is full of closed minded condescending "people" who like to laugh when another perspective

I love the scare quotes around people. I guess anyone who disagrees with you should be dehumanized, yes?

 

[felix123]

Underfunded? They have an overspending problem. Drivers are getting paid close to $40/hr if not more, close to $50/hr on Sundays (x1.25 on Sundays from what I heard), and this includes station collectors, who often gather around together socializing rather than guarding their entrances. I'm not saying they don't deserve a fair wage, but there is such a thing as too much, and when wages are the highest proportion of expenses for the TTC, they need to control their spending first. They've given into most of the union demands. They are not underfunded, they have a spending problem. Not to mention they've overspent on vehicles, especially electric buses, that didn't even perform to expectations. We didn't need "operators" on the SRT. We can automate subways with ATC so that we don't need an "operator" pressing a button. These are choices. And giving into union demands for extraordinarily high wages is a choice.

I don't know where you're living but $40/hour isn't much in Toronto these days. I think a better place to find wasteful spending would be among Metrolinx's 157 VPs.

If anything, Line 6 needs more trams and more operators, though I agree with you that not making the SRT driverless was some TTC nonsense.

 

[mikey7767]

Second, fewer people would apply

From what I heard, they already have a very large pool of applicants. Fewer would still be very large, especially in this economy.

It's not like it would work that way and that there'd instantly be $500m of extra money in the coffers.

Exactly. Just like building your surface LRTs doesn't mean there'd instantly be money for another LRT. So why not just build better.

 

[mikey7767]

I love the scare quotes around people. I guess anyone who disagrees with you should be dehumanized, yes?

Nope. Just folks who are hostile towards an opposing viewpoint. My attitude is born from those who've started their hostility or attempted to invalidate my points or tried to gaslight. Sound familiar?

 

[zang]

From what I heard, they already have a very large pool of applicants.

I think you’ve proven that your sources of information are quite dubious.

Fewer would still be very large, especially in this economy.

Quite the logic there.

If the wages are attracting people, and you cut those wages by 25%, it doesn’t mean you’re only going to lose 25% of the applicants.

Exactly. Just like building your surface LRTs doesn't mean there'd instantly be money for another LRT.

Did anyone claim that?

 

[T3G]

Nope. Just folks who are hostile towards an opposing viewpoint. My attitude is born from those who've started their hostility or attempted to invalidate my points or tried to gaslight. Sound familiar?

You seem to have some memory loss going on, so allow me to remind you of what happened.

You were the one who came in here and started insulting people when they didn't go along with your anti-LRT sentiments. One would think the purpose of opening a discussion is to exchange ideas, not to just have everyone confirm that you are a visionary and your opinions are Law. I am perfectly happy to have a civilized debate about the merits of LRT vs. subway, but you and a lot of other people who share your viewpoint just can't resist insulting us.

 

[mikey7767]

Did anyone claim that?

Yes. That has been the running premise, especially by T3G, about "limited transit dollars" and spending less so that they can build more.

Quite the logic there.

If the wages are attracting people, and you cut those wages by 25%, it doesn’t mean you’re only going to lose 25% of the applicants.

Actually yes. Common sense tells me that even at $30/hr, there would be a large applicant pool in order to do the job. Do you truly believe that at $30/hr, there would be a limited application pool of talent in order to drive a bus, especially these days? Because if that's the case, then great, the economy is a lot better than we thought. And if that's the case, we can even afford to bring in immigrants to do the job, because the Canadian economy would doing a lot better than expected, and immigrants from developing countries can also get a chance at the Canadian dream.

Yeah, it might be against the law to lower wages. But my point here is the TTC is not underfunded. It has an overspending problem. And at the very least, wages can be frozen, along with back to work legislation at the provincial level so that the union can't hold the city hostage under a strike threat.

 

[Undead]

Exorbitant capital costs (witness the TTC's $32 billion SOGR backlog) and high transit building costs are a bigger problem for the TTC than wages.

 

[Obsidian]

Anyone have any data on what's the current end to end travel time on the line now?

 

[zang]

Yes. That has been the running premise, especially by T3G, about "limited transit dollars" and spending less so that they can build more.

You are aware you’ve spent several posts arguing that the TTC has limited transit dollars, right?

Actually yes. Common sense tells me that…

There’s your problem.

I’m done replying to your ideological tripe.

 

[lastcommodore]

can we get back on topic or do we really have to make a thread dedicated to the salaries of ttc employees

 

[mikey7767]

There’s your problem.

It's not like you gave any kind of data on how many applicants there are and how $30/hr would visibly shrink the application pool genius

You are aware you’ve spent several posts arguing that the TTC has limited transit dollars, right?

Nahh, I commented on waste and overspending to make my point about how it's not underfunded. Separate point all together.

I’m done replying to your ideological tripe.

This coming from someone spewing bile in this thread.