• Is subway really the better way? [ Toronto Star ]
• Toronto area gets $1B for transit [ cbc ]
• For the good of transit [ Globe and Mail ]
• PM courts Toronto on transit, climate [ Globe and Mail ]
• Spadina line to end in Vaughan [ National Post ]
• $4.5B big ticket [ Toronto Sun ]
• Ice-free with a flick of switch [ Toronto Star ]
• Officials stress ice precautions taken [ National Post ]
• The signs they are a changin’ [ Toronto Star ]
• Curvy new signs to spring up [ Toronto Sun ]
• New street signs approved [ National Post ]
• Time for some light housework [ Toronto Star ]
• Mayor’s one-cent bid under fire [ Toronto Star ]
• Miller attacked over ‘one cent’ campaign [ National Post ]
• Toronto back closing loophole in Heritage Act [ Globe and Mail ]
• Swans, Speed and Dairy Farms [ Globe and Mail ]
• Architect aims for ‘jewel project’ on Charles [ National Post ]
6 comments
Hmm, the description of those new signs don’t sound very appealing to me.
More transit commentary and news here: ;^)
http://www.metronews.ca/column.aspx?id=5702
and here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/driving/index.htmlhere:
With corrected 2nd URL:
More transport commentary and news here: ;^)
http://www.metronews.ca/column.aspx?id=5702
and here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/driving/index.html
(Note ‘Traffic Guru’ articles.)
Who were the two councillors who voted against the Heritage Act revision?
Ford and Holyday voted against the Heritage item.
…Ford has a motion to scrap all of the bike lane money in the 2007 capital budget that’s before Council today. Apparently he feels bike lanes are (cue laughter) a danger to the health of cyclists. Unsurprisingly Case Ootes spoke against bike lanes. Surprisingly Gloria Linsay-Luby spoke in support of bike lanes.
Another interesting motion currently before Council is from Adam Vaughan on the Front Street Extension. He wants to take the City’s contribution to the tri-partite fund that the FSE is supposed to be paid for out of and use it to fund transit-related projects in and around Union Station. Vaughan aruged that the money was originally earmarked for waterfront improvements, which the FSE is not. And, on top of that, Vaughan pointed out that, since the money has been sitting idle for several years and is expected to be idle for several more, the purchasing power of those dollars is being reduced by the day so the City should spend it now and on something that will benefit Toronto.
Later, Joe Pantalone moved to send the Vaughan motion into the netherregion that is the City Manager’s office. Following that Gord Perks spoke passionately for the Vaughan motion and against Pantalone’s referral.
No motions have been voted on.
It goes without saying that Ford’s motion will lose. Unfortunately, however, I think that Pantalone’s referral will succeed.
Between the group of councillors that want the FSE and those who are unsure but feel it needs to be included in the discussion on the future of the Gardiner and other transportation options, I can’t imagine that they’d essentially kill the FSE through an amendment to the budget. Plus, voting for the referral ensures none of them will actually have to register a vote on the FSE until a later point in time.
For what it’s worth, Ford’s motion on bike lanes lost 39-3 (Ford, Holyday, Ootes).
Pantalone’s referral of the Vaughan motion carried 22-20. My eyes weren’t quick enough to see who voted which way.
The capital budget as ammended carried 32-10. Cho, Feldman and Palacio were absent (a rather predictable act for all three.)