TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[ARG1]

Would help if we had a congestion fee or ban non-residential automobiles in the downtown.

Would help if we had a decent enough transit network that didn't suffer from slow zones, or a regional rail network that still didn't run hourly headways on routes not called Lakeshore. Sure we're on our way to get there, but any discussion on congestion charges like the one in NYC should be dismissed until at least all of our current ongoing projects are completed.

 

[81-717]

The funding is not in limbo.

Yes, I'm sure.

What part of "Yes I'm sure" in my post was confusing to you? I know what I'm talking about.

The train funding is safe..............can we move on please?

I appreciate your confidence, but can I ask how you can be so sure?

Reading Munro's latest post, he says:

During the meeting, we learned that the federal subway car funding is not yet a signed deal. Whether this will be locked down before an election is called remains to be seen.

Here we go back to square one again, so sick and tired of hearing the exact same caveat being parroted over and over again every few months like clockwork for the past 2.5 years (hopefully not this time though)

 

[Northern Light]

I appreciate your confidence, but can I ask how you can be so sure?

Good question, I'll give the 'overt' answer, which is that the City contract to purchase will close by month's end, that is then a legally binding deal w/the manufacturer, made in good faith, based on the federal dollar commitment.

Reading Munro's latest post, he says:

Here we go back to square one again, so sick and tired of hearing the exact same caveat being parroted over and over again every few months like clockwork for the past 2.5 years (hopefully not this time though)

He's not wrong that every 'I' is not dotted and 'T' crossed.

Could a future government attempt to walk this back...........sure......its not impossible. A previous provincial government literally filled in a subway tail track tunnel that had already been dug.

But that's a very expensive choice, and a very unpopular one.............

****

I feel confident in my assertion, but I've repeatedly said here, nothing is certain until its in the past. (even then, there are things we might revisit factually).....

 

[81-717]

Could a future government attempt to walk this back...........sure......its not impossible.

Even aside from that, the post made it sound like even the current government hasn't actually made the commitment everyone said it made.

 

[Northern Light]

Even aside from that, the post made it sound like even the current government hasn't actually made the commitment everyone said it made.

Its been made, there was a press conference for goodness sake.

In law, by the way, an oral contract is legally binding. (assuming you can prove it.............a room full of invited cameras and microphones helps)

 

[RapidTransit]

Its been made, there was a press conference for goodness sake.

In law, by the way, an oral contract is legally binding. (assuming you can prove it.............a room full of invited cameras and microphones helps)

If the contact hasn't been signed or completed, then it's not a binding contract.
Plus the ppl making the announcement is not the same as the people signing the paper work. Plus both sides would have to agree, which they haven't.
Based on what you said , technically TTC has an agreement with the 4 short listed manufacturers already.

I'll go with Steve Munro on this and what was already discussed at the TTC Board meeting , which again contradicts your above statements.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Northern Light]

If the contact hasn't been signed or completed, then it's not a binding contract.
Plus the ppl making the announcement is not the same as the people signing the paper work. Plus both sides would have to agree, which they haven't.
Based on what you said , technically TTC has an agreement with the 4 short listed manufacturers already.

I'll go with Steve Munro on this and what was already discussed at the TTC Board meeting , which again contradicts your above statements.

Thanks for the laugh.

I have no idea what has possessed you to be exceedingly rude.

I didn't insult you in any way.

I have a long standing track record here.

Is it possible I'm wrong? Sure. It happens. But not often. I dislike being wrong, and put a great deal of thought into my posts.

You see a lot of what I know here, but a lot less than everything that I know.

If that's insufficient for you, so be it. You're welcome to a different take.

No derision is required.

 

[RapidTransit]

I have no idea what has possessed you to be exceedingly rude.

I didn't insult you in any way.

I have a long standing track record here.

Is it possible I'm wrong? Sure. It happens. But not often. I dislike being wrong, and put a great deal of thought into my posts.

You see a lot of what I know here, but a lot less than everything that I know.

If that's insufficient for you, so be it. You're welcome to a different take.

No derision is required.

I just broke down how I didn't think it was a contract based on what I've seen from Steve munro to the TTC board. I certainly don't have the inside info that you have.

I was actually hoping to be corrected. I didn't think I was being exceedingly rude to you.

 

[evandyk]

In law, by the way, an oral contract is legally binding. (assuming you can prove it.............a room full of invited cameras and microphones helps)

An oral contract can be binding, but only if both parties agreed to all the terms. In a complex agreement with many terms being discussed/negotiated, it's almost impossible to prove that all have been landed unless you have a single signed document containing all of them.

 

[Northern Light]

I just broke down how I didn't think it was a contract based on what I've seen from Steve munro to the TTC board. I certainly don't have the inside info that you have.

I was actually hoping to be corrected. I didn't think I was being exceedingly rude to you.

"Thanks for the Laugh" was the rude bit. It implies my post was a joke, lacking seriousness or credibility.

 

[RapidTransit]

"Thanks for the Laugh" was the rude bit. It implies my post was a joke, lacking seriousness or credibility.

I genuinely there might have been sarcasm in what you wrote. So just to save face, I made those comments.