MetroMan
Senior Member
Not to get off topic, but this is definitely an election ad for McGuinty. If he plays his cards right, he can swipe Ford's pro subway sales pitch right from under Hudak's nose.
|
|
|
Not to get off topic, but this is definitely an election ad for McGuinty. If he plays his cards right, he can swipe Ford's pro subway sales pitch right from under Hudak's nose.
MetroMan
Senior Member
I presume this is for the Western arm of the Crosstown? Are they planning to start construction on the previously planned west Eglinton line while they study the new underground portion on the East, or will the entire project sit while they work out the new plans?
nfitz
Superstar
It's the portal east of Black Creek. The plan is to drop two of the tunnel boring machines in here and head east. Presumably they will look at the redesign that may effect the east Portal, west of Brentcliffe ... though there still needs to be a portal there somewhere, leading to the Don River bridge ... though it's hard to see how it would still be in the centre of the road.
Eug
Senior Member
Yes, but my main point was that the name just sucks.
I don't think I see how Hudak could actually claim that he's the pro-subway leader, if McGuinty is the one actually putting the money into it.
I suspect the best he'd do is say he'd keep the funding for the subway intact.
V
ventrems
Guest
At a public meeting in April, TTC officials said launch site construction would begin in July 2011 (http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/05/eglinton-scarborough-crosstown-lrt-preparing-construction).
tkip
Active Member
What I wonder about is if Hudak comes to power is there any indication he would honor any deal that's been ironed out between Ford and McGuinty regarding a transit plan?
V
ventrems
Guest
To my knowledge, Mr. Hudak has not stated his position on the Eglinton-Crosstown. Personally, I'd be surprised to see him scrap a plan supported by a fellow conservative, Mayor Rob Ford.
A review of the Ontario PC campaign platform "ChangeBook" revealed some interesting nuggets related to transit funding (full disclosure: I am not affiliated with any political party). Notable promises include giving more power to local municipalities to decide what they want to invest in and increasing municipal share of the gas tax. One concern is that "Metrolinx" shows up only once in the platform. Interestingly, it is in extremely small text on a page about reducing the number of government agencies and "the hidden billions they consume." Featured prominently was EHealth, OLG, LHINs, and Ontario Power Authority. Could Metrolinx be on the chopping block?
Other relevant quotes:
"We need change to tackle traffic congestion that only seems to get worse and worse."
"We will give all Ontario communities a share of the gas tax for the transportation projects that make the most sense for them."
"We will invest more than $35 billion to pay for new infrastructure – much of it in transit and transportation – over our first three years in office and use innovative technologies to help reduce congestion."
"We will stop the war on the car. Our transportation policy needs to be a balance between public transportation and the cars we drive."
"Fifty year grand visions with no funding and no commitment don’t move goods or people any faster. We’ll develop realistic and pragmatic plans that will make a real difference for today’s families."
"Our local governments have had their decision-making power chipped away in recent years. This is unfair, undemocratic, and does nothing to increase the value of services provided at the community level. We will enable more local and decentralized decision-making, and give municipalities more tools to provide better value for local families."
"We will increase the dedicated revenue from the provincial gas tax to transit, roads, and other infrastructure projects. No municipality will receive less funding; every municipality can count on receiving some level of investment. This will be a permanent commitment. We will respect the unique priorities of individual cities and towns, and give them the ability to choose between roads, bridges, and transit."
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Obviously this is mainly an attack on Metrolinx, though it's pretty ridiculous that they're acting like it has forced any municipalities to change their plans. Every municipality is still pretty much completely independent, which is why some places have LRT, BRT or subway. It's also why we have different branded BRT systems in York, Durham, and Brampton. Unfortunately, Hudak wants to get rid of the bare minimum of regional co-ordination that we have finally built.
I agree that he'd be comparatively unlikely to scrap Ford's current transit plan. Like Harris' decision to keep Sheppard because of Lastman's pressure, I'm sure Hudak wouldn't want to make his fellow Conservative look bad.
I agree that he'd be comparatively unlikely to scrap Ford's current transit plan. Like Harris' decision to keep Sheppard because of Lastman's pressure, I'm sure Hudak wouldn't want to make his fellow Conservative look bad.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
They should resurrect that York Centre project to better justify it's existence and use the private sector to help fund it. The same goes for around at Don Mills which can be built up with an East York Centre as well.
It's definitely an idea. Toronto is clearly going to continue its high-rise construction boom. If you give developers specific places to go nuts, they'll do it. It's better to concentrate the really high density stuff to a few select locations, and then have the rest of the city open to mid-rise infill, etc.
BMO
Senior Member
I liek this thought...you know before, I used to have the mentality of wanting to place high density all over the place, but i've slowly been changing my mind, and think the city shoudl really focus on midrise and a mixture of residential types, e.i. detached housing mixed in with high-rise and mid-rise. Essentially if everywhere in Toronto could look liek the area between Eglinton and Davisvill, I'd be content with that.
Ideally, I'd like to see high density (30+ storeys) at major nodes (City/Town Centres, subway stops, etc), mid-rise along arterials and "main streets" (6-15 storeys, with 15-30 in only select locations), with townhomes and semis in most other places. Certain places can be singles, but I'd like to see Beaches or Cornell style singles. Maximize the amount of people with transit at their doorstep, and even when they don't, have the lower density communities still have sufficient density to support a local bus route.
For a street like Eglinton for example, ideally I'd like to see 10 storeys midblock fronting onto the street, 5 storeys directly behind that, and then towns and semis behind that.
BMO
Senior Member
make those 10s buildings stepped buildings and you and I are on the same wavelength. If this approach was really emphasized at public consultations, I think projects like these would face substantially less opposition from locals worried about loosing their home to development. Considering on most major streets the buildings directly fronting the street are comemrcial or industrial, It's basically jsut a replacement of exisitng buildings with more efficient ones, and a slight increase in density right behind those.
Asterix
Active Member
It's important to remember that all this increase in development does not happen in isolation. It's not just a matter of replacing a 1 - 2 story commercial/industrial/residential building with a 10, 20 or 40 story tower.
When you add that many more people to an area, there are other needs:
- increased water/sewer/gas/hyrdro infrastructure;
- unless all those new residents are going to be empty nesters, you might have to deal with several hundred new kids for the local schools - do they have the capacity?
- with several thousand new residents, how much capacity is there are on the local roads? Surely it's not realistic to think every last one of them will solely take the transit outside their door;
- what about the capacity of local places like community centres and parks? Will existing locals be pleased to be crowded out as the population doubles (or triples) without any new investment in these aspects?
Those things all come with a cost. Normally that cost is to be covered by development charges, but apparently that money is all being allocated to building the subway on Sheppard, so how are they paid for? Or do we just accept bursting schools and overloaded infrastructure?
When you add that many more people to an area, there are other needs:
- increased water/sewer/gas/hyrdro infrastructure;
- unless all those new residents are going to be empty nesters, you might have to deal with several hundred new kids for the local schools - do they have the capacity?
- with several thousand new residents, how much capacity is there are on the local roads? Surely it's not realistic to think every last one of them will solely take the transit outside their door;
- what about the capacity of local places like community centres and parks? Will existing locals be pleased to be crowded out as the population doubles (or triples) without any new investment in these aspects?
Those things all come with a cost. Normally that cost is to be covered by development charges, but apparently that money is all being allocated to building the subway on Sheppard, so how are they paid for? Or do we just accept bursting schools and overloaded infrastructure?
BMO
Senior Member
This is very true. But, say for instance, if these developments were put in place as a result of the transit, or vice-versa, aren't there policies in place to ensure the developers cover the cost of the infrastructure needed to support them? (not including schooling). I was under the impression that with the higher densities these development companies are bounded by agreements to put in public services like public parks, upgraded sewers, etc. Some clarification on this would be much appreciated.