TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[Richard White]

As @W. K. Lis notes above this idea is entirely practical and already in use at multiple GO stations across the City and in other similar applications around the world.

This is the second time today you've commented that a proven idea with a track record is impractical.

I would greatly appreciate your taking the time to research ideas with which you are clearly unfamilar prior to commenting.

Unfamiliar with... well well.. Them be fighting words.

I only stated it was impractical because it was. Logistically if you put a heated space outside in the winter in a city with limited shelter space someone will take up residence. They will hit the button a few times and sleep in the warmth.

Secondly, I have worked in many places with heated ramps and driveways. They are not capable of handling large and immediate dumps of snow.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Ford official outlines major changes to Toronto transit as costs of Scarborough subway, relief line soar

From link.

In newly released letters that could lead to major changes to Toronto transit plans, a provincial official suggests Premier Doug Ford’s government intends to take over the city’s subway system in order to make radical changes to four major transit projects, while signalling projected costs for two planned lines have soared.

The letters are addressed to TTC Chief Executive Officer Rick Leary and City Manager Chris Murray from Michael Lindsay, the province’s special adviser on its plan to “upload” the subway network to Queen’s Park. They were posted by the city Tuesday afternoon and will be debated by council as early as Wednesday as part of an already released report by city staff on discussions with the province.

In the first of the letters, dated March 22, Lindsay lays out four key Toronto transit projects the city was already pursuing but that he says the province wants to alter.
He also writes that the city’s cost projections for two of the projects, the Scarborough subway extension and the first phase of the downtown relief line, “have significantly increased to nearly double or greater than the figures released publicly.”

Lindsay’s comment about rising costs is apparently based on discussions in a meeting he held with city officials on March 8.


“While the workshop was productive, it is evident that we are not aligned on key issues related to the design/delivery of priority expansion projects,” Lindsay wrote.
“It is also clear that this lack of alignment is likely to persist until the responsibility for the design/delivery of these projects is transferred to the province.”

Lindsay cited “incongruities” between the city and Queen’s Park on four projects:

• The Scarborough subway extension, which the Ontario government wants to convert from a one- to three-stop extension.
• The Eglinton West LRT, which Lindsay said should be put underground for a “significant portion” of its route.
• The Relief Line, which the province proposes to build using an “alternative delivery methods” that would create a “free-standing project” that would use different technology than the rest of the subway system.
• The Yonge North Extension to Richmond Hill, work for which the province proposes should “progress in parallel to the Relief Line,” in order to accelerate its opening date “to the greatest extent possible.”

Lindsay wrote that to speed up work on these projects, “the province is actively considering significant financial commitments.”

But those commitments would come with strings attached, Lindsay suggested, in the form of an “expectation that the province will have a leadership in the planning, design, and delivery of these projects.”

He requested the city provide all updated cost projections for the relief line and Scarborough subway extension.

The city didn’t immediately provide those figures in response to questions from the Star, but previous estimates put the cost of the relief line at $6.8 billion, and the one-stop version of the Scarborough project at $3.35 billion.

If those estimates have doubled, the cost of the two projects would be more than $20 billion combined.

In a followup letter four days later, Lindsay sought to clarify that his comments in the March 22 correspondence shouldn’t be taken as deviating from the terms of reference that are supposed to guide collaborative discussions on the upload. According to those terms, the province agreed to consider the possibility of not taking over Toronto transit projects.

Lindsay said those talks should continue on “an accelerated basis.”

But he reiterated his statement that if the province makes major funding commitments for new projects, it expects to be in charge of delivering the lines.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link.

 

[nfitz]

The shear level of stupidity in the Premier's office is astounding. It's amazing that anyone was gullible enough to support such shear idiocy. Bury Eglinton West? Not use heavy rail for the DRL?

In reality, this will likely just kill or severely delay both projects.

 

[Northern Light]

From link.

Excellent post. TY, I was looking for that letter.

I am no Ford fan, and take issue w/some of the contents in that letter; with that said, I'm not altogether thrilled with the Star representation of its contents which seems......a bit off.

 

[Northern Light]

The shear level of stupidity in the Premier's office is astounding. It's amazing that anyone was gullible enough to support such shear idiocy. Bury Eglinton West? Not use heavy rail for the DRL?

In reality, this will likely just kill or severely delay both projects.

Agreed with point 1 (Eglinton).

Not sure what they mean by using different tech..........that requires an explanation.

Also of note, however, was the suggestion there would be no link to line 2, implying, to me anyway, that they would require a different rolling stock maintenance facility.

I can't conceive of anywhere along the currently proposed route where there's room, even if you added the north and west legs.

 

[nfitz]

I am no Ford fan, and take issue w/some of the contents in that letter; with that said, I'm not altogether thrilled with the Star representation of its contents which seems......a bit off.

Representation of it's contents? Mostly it just reiterates them. The only thing I see is taking the doubling to mean that the old $10 billion must be $20 billion.

Though that's literally what the letter means, if it's true. So what seems off?

 

[Northern Light]

Representation of it's contents? Mostly it just reiterates them. The only thing I see is taking the doubling to mean that the old $10 billion must be $20 billion.

Though that's literally what the letter means, if it's true. So what seems off?

Fair enough.

I suppose its tone.

In reading Spurr's Twitter and the abbreviated initial piece in the Star, I was given to the impression of urgent, final new decisions and a more confrontational tone.

What I get from the letter is very concerning and problematic notably the complete and utter nonsense (Eglinton) and highly suspect (Relief Line) references; but the tone is different than what I would have assumed.

Also his initial material did not identify the official or link to the letter.

This is a bad habit of journalists everywhere.

I expect ALL (electronic print) articles to have live links to all non-confidential source material.

When you don't link to the budget, the press release, the backgrounder, the letter etc. I wonder why not.

 

[nfitz]

When you don't link to the budget, the press release, the backgrounder, the letter etc. I wonder why not.

Breaking news? Print deadlines? Money? All are issues endemic in the industry.

The Star seems further ahead on this than any other media outlet.

 

[BurlOak]

From link.

Funny, that seems to contradict this memo from 4 days later.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-131253.pdf

 

[adys123]

The two letters that have been posted contract quite severely in 'who is to blame' so to speak.

Did anyone notice in the recently posted MTO by WKLis, they made a comment about making the relief line not 'beholden to the technologically-outdated Line 2' while in two points above, they advocated for the extension of the Scarborough Subway with the so called 'technologically-outdated Line 2'.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The two letters that have been posted contract quite severely in 'who is to blame' so to speak.

Did anyone notice in the recently posted MTO by WKLis, they made a comment about making the relief line not 'beholden to the technologically-outdated Line 2' while in two points above, they advocated for the extension of the Scarborough Subway with the so called 'technologically-outdated Line 2'.

In any case - beyond the lack of ATC or platform barriers - just what is particularly technologically outdated about Line 2?

AoD

 

[adys123]

In any case - beyond the lack of ATC or platform barriers - just what is particularly technologically outdated about Line 2?

AoD

Well, yes, that's a point too... aside from their clear desire to cancel all these projects by unrealistically ballooning the costs and making them more 'fancy'

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, yes, that's a point too... aside from their clear desire to cancel all these projects by unrealistically ballooning the costs and making them more 'fancy'

Because technologically advanced mass transit tends to be "cheaper"? I guess he must have been talking to Elon and his boring company.

AoD

 

[BurlOak]

The two letters that have been posted contract quite severely in 'who is to blame' so to speak.

Did anyone notice in the recently posted MTO by WKLis, they made a comment about making the relief line not 'beholden to the technologically-outdated Line 2' while in two points above, they advocated for the extension of the Scarborough Subway with the so called 'technologically-outdated Line 2'.

I guess there's a difference between an extension, that has to use the same technology, and a brand new line where any possibility can be explored.