nottoban
New Member
I think you'll find that the choice had more to do with vehicle procurement given the decision to operate low floor LRTs within Toronto, not one of competence necessarily.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Monarch Butterfly
- Start date
APTA-2048
Senior Member
The vehicles for Eglinton and Finch were part of an agreement with Bombardier for the legacy streetcar vehicles, which are 100% low floor. They are 100% low floor because that was the preference/recommendation from ACAT.
cplchanb
Senior Member
Well this the same organization building even heavier rail platforms with 1920s step ups to their trains
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Line 6 was partially down this evening. Shuttle buses were running.
hw621
Senior Member
Just keep the bus and scrap the streetcar
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Should we assume that the Finch line will be down due to winter weather on Sunday and Monday? Honestly, why did we design and build a LRT system that cannot operate in very ordinary Canadian environments?
cplchanb
Senior Member
At this rate you might as well convert it to a BRT... infrastructure is already there
Bordercollie
Senior Member
No foresight. Not really commited to the success of the project being successful. Designed by people who don't use transit
hw621
Senior Member
Admiral Beez
Superstar
How hard can this be even with the setup we have. Put a damn plow on the front of a LRT or service car. Here’s Zurich, for example.
And assign teams at every necessary switch to ensure they’re operational. Like it’s done everywhere else it snows.
Category:Point heating – Wikimedia Commons
afransen
Senior Member
Sunday should be interesting.
Burnt creek
Active Member
2026 is the 50th anniversary of the Montreal Olympics. A project in which expenditures in capital cost & operating expense are estimated to have been in the range of 1.6 Billion CAD; that is in 1970's dollars. So in today's dollars that is obviously much higher than the public expenditures in FW LRT. Over the years, I have read a lot great stuff on the Montreal Olympics (most of the good material is in French). And, If we had a Hollywood in Canada, there would be movies done on this because the whole story of the Montreal Olympics had everything in terms of drama and gripping stories. It had an eccentric/oblivious mayor, wide spread corruption, unions that were run by thugs with links to organized crime, extortion through worker strikes, politics and the touch and go race to the finished line which nearly resulted in completed cancelation of the 76 Olympics. There were first hand stories of workers checking in with a handful of punch cards then leaving the worksite only to return at the end of the shift to punch out all those punch cards. There were stories of equipment arriving on site & incurring very high daily costs but sat idle for many month until they could be used.
Obviously the FWLRT project had no such stories that we are aware off. But if you look at the long term value delivered by the two projects, then the comparisons get interesting. The last dollar of debt from the Montreal Olympics was paid off in 2006 and the $1.6 Bill are long ago sunk costs but there is still infrastructure from the Montreal Olympics that is present today and it is still delivering value to the community & City. You cannot use ROI to compare these kind of projects because you need to be able to monetize the total return and you cant do that with with a public good because we are talkin about intangible assets mostly. But Centre Claude Robillard is still around, as is the Olympic village (now Residential apartments), the Velodrome (now Biodome), Olympic pool...etc. You can't deny value here even if you can't monetize it and these assets have been delivering ongoing value for over 20 yrs after the last cent of debt was paid off
But if the FWLRT delivered the same long term value, then what is it? i cant figure it out because the current asset delivers less value than the pre-existing asset. In other words, I do not see a legacy from this project. Whereas you can for the 76 Olympics. So its an interesting debate, what is the bigger boondoggle?
Obviously the FWLRT project had no such stories that we are aware off. But if you look at the long term value delivered by the two projects, then the comparisons get interesting. The last dollar of debt from the Montreal Olympics was paid off in 2006 and the $1.6 Bill are long ago sunk costs but there is still infrastructure from the Montreal Olympics that is present today and it is still delivering value to the community & City. You cannot use ROI to compare these kind of projects because you need to be able to monetize the total return and you cant do that with with a public good because we are talkin about intangible assets mostly. But Centre Claude Robillard is still around, as is the Olympic village (now Residential apartments), the Velodrome (now Biodome), Olympic pool...etc. You can't deny value here even if you can't monetize it and these assets have been delivering ongoing value for over 20 yrs after the last cent of debt was paid off
But if the FWLRT delivered the same long term value, then what is it? i cant figure it out because the current asset delivers less value than the pre-existing asset. In other words, I do not see a legacy from this project. Whereas you can for the 76 Olympics. So its an interesting debate, what is the bigger boondoggle?
Last edited:
Burnt creek
Active Member
Forgot to mention. I think it might have taken less time to build all the infrastructure for the Montreal Olympics (including the Big O) than it took to complete the FWLRT (i.e.: Streetcar)
Jm gravel
New Member
At least Line 5 isn’t open yet…so won’t have to deal with Sunday’s snow….
urbanclient
Senior Member
I'd rather rip the band-aid off sooner than later. They can iterate, even shut down the line for further changes if they need to after initial opening.
This Canadian procrastination culture of performative perfectionism masquerading as quality control needs to stop. These projects are never perfect, no matter how long the delays.