This is a serious, emotion-filled production worth attending solely on the grounds that one will learn more about autism.
The title character Lucy is a thirteen-year old autistic child who is reunited with her mother after being raised in the care of her father. It's tempting to come away from the play thinking about what one has learned about the condition. However, while the playright clearly intends to educate the audience in that regard, this is not in any way the exclusive purpose.
The characters - especially Vivian, Lucy's mother - deal with very real human emotions and feelings in attempting to cope with the difficulties of raising an autistic child: denial, avoidance, guilt, exasperation and love.
I enjoyed the performances of the actors. This is worth a try.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Budgets, budgets, budgets...
...well three budgets to be exact in recent weeks. First was the federal government's version - which has just passed in the Commons. Provincial finance minister Greg Sorbara followed quickly on the tail of Jim Flaherty with the Ontario budget. Lastly, we have Toronto's municipal budget - which thanks to the mayor and the new City of Toronto Act - has appeared out of nowhere.
City Council and the public in general will have scant opportunity to review, or in any fashion influence this latest spend-fest.
To some, the big news out of all this was how the senior levels of government ignored Miller's pleas for a New Deal for Cities - (or sone of the New Deal for Cities - aka the 'One Cent Now' begging bowl.)
Remarkly, even hard-core Millerites such as the Globe's John Barber have pointed out the folly of Miller's campaign. Let's be real, all mayors would like any freebies that can get from anywhere - what's not to like about getting $$$ that you're not accountable for. However, it's only Toronto - with its civic government bought lock-stock-and-barrel by the public sector unions - that needs the money.
Canada's cities are world leaders in municipal financial strength. This is due - in the main - to careful spending and conservative requirements for reserves such as sinking funds. While Toronto does maintain the minimum sinkning funds as required by law, other reserves have been repeatedely raided.
Anyway - back to the budgets. Not only was Toronto ignored, to add insult to injury, the 905 belts' payments into the GTA Social Services Polling arrangement will be phased out over a number of years. The provice will pick up the difference. This actually exacerbates the fiscal advantage that the 'burbs maintain over the city. Unless their politicians catch the Toronto disease, I'd be expecting for reduction in business taxes in these jurisdictions.
City Council and the public in general will have scant opportunity to review, or in any fashion influence this latest spend-fest.
To some, the big news out of all this was how the senior levels of government ignored Miller's pleas for a New Deal for Cities - (or sone of the New Deal for Cities - aka the 'One Cent Now' begging bowl.)
Remarkly, even hard-core Millerites such as the Globe's John Barber have pointed out the folly of Miller's campaign. Let's be real, all mayors would like any freebies that can get from anywhere - what's not to like about getting $$$ that you're not accountable for. However, it's only Toronto - with its civic government bought lock-stock-and-barrel by the public sector unions - that needs the money.
Canada's cities are world leaders in municipal financial strength. This is due - in the main - to careful spending and conservative requirements for reserves such as sinking funds. While Toronto does maintain the minimum sinkning funds as required by law, other reserves have been repeatedely raided.
Anyway - back to the budgets. Not only was Toronto ignored, to add insult to injury, the 905 belts' payments into the GTA Social Services Polling arrangement will be phased out over a number of years. The provice will pick up the difference. This actually exacerbates the fiscal advantage that the 'burbs maintain over the city. Unless their politicians catch the Toronto disease, I'd be expecting for reduction in business taxes in these jurisdictions.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
More on the Transit City - Cost approaching $10 billion
The TTC has a habit of low-balling the estimated costs of capital projects. Given that this an engineer-run organization rather than a customer-oriented one, this is not surprising. LRT projects could keep TTC engineering and planning staff busy for a while. If working of EAs (Environmental Assessments) is part of your job description at the TTC, this is the ultimate gravy train. It doesn't matter if the scheme is good for riders or the city in general.
Despite the staggering cost estimate, it appears that the scheme is being low-balled. The TTC does this consistently - so no surprise here. One obvious delusion is the plan to use only 240 vehicles. Although the vehicles would be larger than todays CLRVs, and even so than the ALRV versions, the 240 vehicle fleet size works out to an unrealistic load factor in terms of riders per service hour.
Applying the benchmark from Calgary C-train (122 riders per service hour) , using 240 vehicles for 175 million passengers a year would require vehicles to be in service an average of 16 hours/day. This doesn't seem realistic.
I would expect LRT ridership/service hours on the proposed routes to be lower than the Calgary benchmark. Why ?
a. Other than the Eglinton line's central segment, one of the lines will be serving a dense employment district.
b. The speed of service will not match that in Calgary. The C-train lines are cut under most intersections of any size. There are at grade crossing - but most are in industrial/warhouse areas. (Check out Google Earth as a good way of investigating this.)
c. I'd expect station spacing (if there are actually stations) to end up being about 400 metres. (Longer than this and residents will demanding local bus service.) This will slow the service - reducing passengers/service hour.
d. Calgary's LRT runs in large part on completely segregated ROW (i.e. no vehicles and no pedestrians. This allows trains to run at high speed between stations. This won't be possible with the proposed lines here - other than sections in tunnels - due to pedestrian safety requirements.
More realistic would be 100 boardings / hour or necessitating about 386 vehciles (I'm using the Calgary benchmark of about 12.3 hours in service/day).
With extra yard/maintenance space, the difference adds about $1 billion to the price tag.
Information is now trickling out about some of the other truth-stretching. TTC Commissioner Milcyn Peter Milczyn has been quoted indicating that the price tag for the critical tunnel section of the proposed Eglinton line is twice the estimate put forward. The proposed line on Jane will need 1-2 km of tunnel at the South end - minimum. This is not included in the estimates - which assume at grade construction only.
In addition, the so-called 'Transit City' plan does not include other wish list lines. We're already under the gun for $1 b note for the streetcar replacements for existing streetcar routes.
Is the price tag close to $10 billion yet - yes it is.
Despite the staggering cost estimate, it appears that the scheme is being low-balled. The TTC does this consistently - so no surprise here. One obvious delusion is the plan to use only 240 vehicles. Although the vehicles would be larger than todays CLRVs, and even so than the ALRV versions, the 240 vehicle fleet size works out to an unrealistic load factor in terms of riders per service hour.
Applying the benchmark from Calgary C-train (122 riders per service hour) , using 240 vehicles for 175 million passengers a year would require vehicles to be in service an average of 16 hours/day. This doesn't seem realistic.
I would expect LRT ridership/service hours on the proposed routes to be lower than the Calgary benchmark. Why ?
a. Other than the Eglinton line's central segment, one of the lines will be serving a dense employment district.
b. The speed of service will not match that in Calgary. The C-train lines are cut under most intersections of any size. There are at grade crossing - but most are in industrial/warhouse areas. (Check out Google Earth as a good way of investigating this.)
c. I'd expect station spacing (if there are actually stations) to end up being about 400 metres. (Longer than this and residents will demanding local bus service.) This will slow the service - reducing passengers/service hour.
d. Calgary's LRT runs in large part on completely segregated ROW (i.e. no vehicles and no pedestrians. This allows trains to run at high speed between stations. This won't be possible with the proposed lines here - other than sections in tunnels - due to pedestrian safety requirements.
More realistic would be 100 boardings / hour or necessitating about 386 vehciles (I'm using the Calgary benchmark of about 12.3 hours in service/day).
With extra yard/maintenance space, the difference adds about $1 billion to the price tag.
Information is now trickling out about some of the other truth-stretching. TTC Commissioner Milcyn Peter Milczyn has been quoted indicating that the price tag for the critical tunnel section of the proposed Eglinton line is twice the estimate put forward. The proposed line on Jane will need 1-2 km of tunnel at the South end - minimum. This is not included in the estimates - which assume at grade construction only.
In addition, the so-called 'Transit City' plan does not include other wish list lines. We're already under the gun for $1 b note for the streetcar replacements for existing streetcar routes.
Is the price tag close to $10 billion yet - yes it is.
LRT notes
It's a step forward to be seeing a plan - of sorts. It seems that this wash rsuhed to the presses somewhat. Some odd and sundry comments.
1. LRT on Jane?
I can't see this being effective LT (at the south end) without a fairly long tunnel - with a big dig at the southern terminus. Without this, there is no room for stations. Was this thrown in to balance out the map politically?
2. 240 vehicles?
Applying the benchmark from Calgary C-train (122 riders per service hour) , using 240 vehicles for 175 million passengers a year would require vehicles to be in service an average of 16 hours/day. This doesn't seem realistic.
I would expect LRT ridership/service hours on the proposed routes to be lower than the Calgary benchmark. Whey
a. Other than the Eglinton line's central segment, one of the lines will be serving a dense employment district.
b. The speed of service will not match that in Calgary. The C-train lines are cut under most intersections of any size. There are at grade crossing - but most are in industrial/warhouse areas. (Check out Google Earth as a good way of investigating this.)
c. I'd expect station spacing (if there are actually stations) to end up being about 400 metres. (Longer than this and residents will demanding local bus service.) This will slow the service - reducing passengers/service hour.
d. Calgary's LRT runs in large part on completely segregated ROW (i.e. no vehicles and no pedestrians. This allows trains to run at high speed between stations. This won't be possible with the proposed lines here - other than sections in tunnels - due to pedestrian safety requirements.
More realistic would be 100 boardings / hour - necessitating about 386 vehicles (I'm using the Calgary benchmark of about 12.3 hours in service/day).
With extra yard/maintenance space, the difference adds about $1 billion to the price tag.
1. LRT on Jane?
I can't see this being effective LT (at the south end) without a fairly long tunnel - with a big dig at the southern terminus. Without this, there is no room for stations. Was this thrown in to balance out the map politically?
2. 240 vehicles?
Applying the benchmark from Calgary C-train (122 riders per service hour) , using 240 vehicles for 175 million passengers a year would require vehicles to be in service an average of 16 hours/day. This doesn't seem realistic.
I would expect LRT ridership/service hours on the proposed routes to be lower than the Calgary benchmark. Whey
a. Other than the Eglinton line's central segment, one of the lines will be serving a dense employment district.
b. The speed of service will not match that in Calgary. The C-train lines are cut under most intersections of any size. There are at grade crossing - but most are in industrial/warhouse areas. (Check out Google Earth as a good way of investigating this.)
c. I'd expect station spacing (if there are actually stations) to end up being about 400 metres. (Longer than this and residents will demanding local bus service.) This will slow the service - reducing passengers/service hour.
d. Calgary's LRT runs in large part on completely segregated ROW (i.e. no vehicles and no pedestrians. This allows trains to run at high speed between stations. This won't be possible with the proposed lines here - other than sections in tunnels - due to pedestrian safety requirements.
More realistic would be 100 boardings / hour - necessitating about 386 vehicles (I'm using the Calgary benchmark of about 12.3 hours in service/day).
With extra yard/maintenance space, the difference adds about $1 billion to the price tag.
True LRT in Toronto? Perhaps not.
The TTC has launched a PR campiagn to get $$$$$ for a significant implementation of 'light rail'.
The $6.4 billion dollar question is whether such a system would be true 'light rail' - or simply more mid-numbingly ineffective streetcars.
Already we're seeing that the plan is really more just streetcars. One of the lines would run down Jane - the plan being to have this on the surface. As the southern stretch (down from Eglinton to Bloor) is a standard Toronto 'arterial' - 2 lanes each way with no room for widening - there is no room for LRT.
So would Toronto's LRT be like Calgary's. I've included am image (from Google Earth) of just one of many cuts (tunnels) under intersections that make Calgary C-train successful - because of speed. This one is typical.
Those expecting Toronto to invest in such infrastructure are overly optimistic.
The $6.4 billion dollar question is whether such a system would be true 'light rail' - or simply more mid-numbingly ineffective streetcars.
Already we're seeing that the plan is really more just streetcars. One of the lines would run down Jane - the plan being to have this on the surface. As the southern stretch (down from Eglinton to Bloor) is a standard Toronto 'arterial' - 2 lanes each way with no room for widening - there is no room for LRT.
So would Toronto's LRT be like Calgary's. I've included am image (from Google Earth) of just one of many cuts (tunnels) under intersections that make Calgary C-train successful - because of speed. This one is typical.
Those expecting Toronto to invest in such infrastructure are overly optimistic.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
One-cent nonsense
Mayor Miller has ramped up a "new" campaign aimed at getting 1 cent of federal GST for 'cities'. It makes me wonder what they really teach in economics program at Harvard (of which Miller is an alumnus.) This isn't really a new 'show' - but simply rehashed episodes of the old 'New Deal for Toronto' campaign.
OK - its was technically referred to as the 'New Deal for Cities' campaign. In reality, it was and is all about Toronto. No other city in Ontario or Canada has managed to get itself in the financial mess in which we find ourselves. Now the upper levels of government have increased transfers to the municipal layer in the form of allocations of the gasoline tax and exemptions on the GST.
Now has this helped Toronto? No - things are worse. Instead of using the increased transfers to improve the city's finances, the $$$ instead disappeared in an orgy of spending. Toronto's many city halls - yes we have all of them despite being consolidated - are bursting at the seems.
What would happen if the feds granted this latest wish. Well run municipalities would take the money and reduce business taxes. Toronto would just spent it on more bureaucrats.
OK - its was technically referred to as the 'New Deal for Cities' campaign. In reality, it was and is all about Toronto. No other city in Ontario or Canada has managed to get itself in the financial mess in which we find ourselves. Now the upper levels of government have increased transfers to the municipal layer in the form of allocations of the gasoline tax and exemptions on the GST.
Now has this helped Toronto? No - things are worse. Instead of using the increased transfers to improve the city's finances, the $$$ instead disappeared in an orgy of spending. Toronto's many city halls - yes we have all of them despite being consolidated - are bursting at the seems.
What would happen if the feds granted this latest wish. Well run municipalities would take the money and reduce business taxes. Toronto would just spent it on more bureaucrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)