kEiThZ
Superstar
What did Karl Marx call it again? Oh right, the "false consciousness" of the masses.
Never knew you were a Marxist
What did Karl Marx call it again? Oh right, the "false consciousness" of the masses.
Miller caused the TTC and City Worker strikes by being too soft on labour! Ridership is at an all-time high and service levels have increased but transit is worse than it ever has been! Up is Down! Black is White!
I wasn't aware that anyone other than you find my posts laughable. I'm sure if others had a problem with my argumentative style they would've said something by now. But hey, it's cool man. I'm here to shock and entertain just as much I aim to enlighten and inform those amongst us who are too docile to think for themselves. What did Karl Marx call it again? Oh right, the "false consciousness" of the masses.
^ Well, Miller has nobody but himself to blame for that. He chose to chuck all existing transit plans out the window when he got elected and run with Transit City. There is no other mayor but him with fingerprints on this plan. He made it worse by prioritizing routes solely on an ideological basis.
At this point, I think he's actually worried about his legacy than anything else. He'll be the mayor that did some nice stuff on business taxes, touched on waterfront development, cancelled a bridge in an attempt to stifle a highly successful Toronto based business, and didn't really do much for transit other than build two tram lines in suburbia.
He placed a big bet. He lost. Let him wear it.
Just to back kettal up, I also find your posts laughable.
Maybe we should create a poll thread?
I was talking about your achievments.Best mayor in many a year? The same one responsible for the TTC strike of '08 and the garbage collector's strike of '09? Seriously?
Your kidding right? Surely many here find your posts laughable!I wasn't aware that anyone other than you find my posts laughable.
What? You have offered some of the most impractical and naive solutions going!The only reason you find them laughable is because you're in awe that someone can be so brutally honest about the issues and attempt to offer practical solutions
What? You have offered some of the most impractical and naive solutions going!
By "clearly needs to be built as a metro subway line", I presume you mean it will need to carry a subway line's worth of riders at peak. Might I ask where you sourced your demand numbers for this "clearly" conclusion?
I wasn't aware that anyone other than you find my posts laughable. I'm sure if others had a problem with my argumentative style they would've said something by now. But hey, it's cool man. I'm here to shock and entertain just as much I aim to enlighten and inform those amongst us who are too docile to think for themselves. What did Karl Marx call it again? Oh right, the "false consciousness" of the masses.
What is clear is that if existing bus/streetcar/whatever-that's-not-a-subway service moved "a subway line's worth" of people, we probably wouldn't need a subway (though we still might want to improve transit and traffic by grade-separating the line). If a subway was built along Eglinton, yes, it would move "a subway's worth," but if we don't build a subway on Eglinton, these riders will not materialize unless the TTC decides to begin dumping bus riders off at Eglinton. Ridership is very, very malleable and there's absolutely no such thing as static "demand" for transit that can be predicted or moved around like chess pieces.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your conclusion basically a variation of "if you build it, they will come"?
I was under the impression that detailed studies of demand along the Eglinton corridor had been done, making use of the city's Official Plan for development and use of the area along the route, to determine whether there would be enough people wanting to use the line to justify it being a subway.
Now it is quite possible they cooked the numbers or the city's plan will not match what happens in reality or their accounting for drawing riders from other nearby routes is off, but I would think that methodology is slightly more valid than the assuming that the simple availability of a subway line will result in subway level demand.
If studies conclude that demand in the coming decades along Eglinton will remain within the levels serviceable by a grad-separated LRT line (with a central portion underground), then does it make fiscal sense to spend oodles more money to make it a full subway? Keep in mind that through the tunneled section, multi-car trains will be able to provide near-subway level capacity.
You are wrong.
You're also wrong about the relative cost of a completely grade-separated LRT line with multi-car vehicles and a "full subway." But we're not getting a grade-separated LRT line, we're getting a 1/3 grade-separated LRT line. A fully grade-separated multi-car LRT line can do pretty much whatever a subway does...it *is* a subway with somewhat different cars, and it doesn't really matter which of the two we build on Eglinton. Grade-separation vs waiting at red lights outside the tunnel is the real issue, not LRT vs subway.
25 years where the plans went all but unfunded. The plans were clearly never going to get anywhere. Instead we have an affordable transit plan ... though about half the current funding for what ... 75 km or transit or so, goes to the 12-km subway-like piece of Eglinton.Anyway, this is not about me, this is about the mayor throwing out the window every sound transit expansion plan from the past 25 years to pull out of his rear end streetcars-for-suburbia which lobbysists along Sheppard East have stated that they do not want, which concerned citizens along Finch West have expressed in town hall meetings that they do not want.
That's absurd. We're supposed to create a scar in the landscape that will be there for a hundred-plus years, instead of building something interesting? The last thing we need is another Allen Road type scar.My biggest beef with the Eglinton line is not the fact that it's LRT, it's the fact that it's not using the Richview corridor in the west. Even when the line was being planned as a BRT route in the early stages of Network 2011 planning, it was still going to use the Richview Corridor. That land was set aside for transportation, USE IT!