Rob Ford wants subways, not streetcars

[nfitz]

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO DECEIVE US?!!

That he wants to close TTC? Didn't he make it clear that he wanted to close most TTC routes at 10 pm, during the discussions in 2008 about extending service?

That's awfully big type. Are you trying to compensate for something?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Fresh Start:

Ford can get the provincial and federal governments off their respective CULOS and make a lasting commitment to Public Transit, in supporting cities with existing public transit by allocating, a percentage of the billions of dollars collected annually through existing gasoline and diesel taxes, based on populations of each city, transit financing can be solved once and for all for Toronto and other Canadian cities

Really, since when did pigs start to fly?

And unfortunately it's thanks to people like Jane Jacobs who fought to keep streetcars running through the Downtown core that the construction of the DRL has been put off for over 40 years now. Without streetcars that subway would have been expedited a long time ago.

Don't equate the DRL to the Queen subway line - it was a choice between Bloor and Queen and the former got chosen. DRL has nothing to do with it - and I believe the most recent proposal for the Queen corridor that got anywhere is to have it as an underground LRT. And speaking of Rob Ford, what's his plan for the DRL, how does he intend to pay for it, how much will it cost? He hasn't said a thing - or having a transt plan of any kind in general other than some vague pie in the sky notion that somehow air rights will pay for it.

Metrolinx can propose and like all they want, but at the end of the day if they can't even build the pesky Eglinton line without huffing and puffing about cost and talk about how they need to phase everything, wait till they see the dollar sign from the DRL and get a coronary.

I have to say, got to love it when someone resort to screaming on a forum - who is trolling now, I wonder.

AoD

 

[LAz]

From what I know this guy has not proposed any plan whatsoever, and it does not look like he will in the near future. So, I think that he should be disregarded until he says what's on his mind. Heck, from all that we know he might fill in half a line with concrete, so why would I bother to think about him if I do not have any assurance if he will or will not do that?

 

[Asterix]

Not neccesarily. The $4.6 billion being used now to do a mere 20 kilometres of Eglinton Crosstown LRT at roughly $230 million/km is enough to build 15 kilometres of Eglinton heavy-rail metro (@ $310 miilion/km). These costings can flactuate even lower the further west one expands that subway. So a subway stretching from Highway 27 and Dixon to Yonge and Eglinton or one from Kennedy Station to Eglinton West or one from Mount Dennis to Warden could be built for the same amount and carry tens of thousands more people during AM/PM rush than the light-rail ever will be capable of doing. Can you honestly say that LRT is the better bang for buck in this situation?

Is LRT better bang for the buck? I guess that depends on what things you want to look at.

If you only want to look at costs for the central tunneled portion, then probably not, although LRT operation in multi-car trainsets with ATC underground would provide capacity not too far off heavy rail.

If you want to consider costs of the line beyond the currently planned tunnel, then LRT starts giving you an awful lot more km for your buck.

If you want to consider additional infrastructure costs, Eglinton LRT would build a car house just off the line somewhere in the west. If you built it subway, what would you do? Would you build a larger, more intense, subway yard along the line? Would you try and tackle the rather expensive cost of putting in a turn to join the Spadina line (how would you do it anyways?) and then spend more money to expand Wilson?

And even if you could somehow financially justify full subway cost for the entire length of the planned line, is it really worth it if that level of infrastructure isn't really needed?

I know you poo-pooh the demand theories, but it does make sense to me that you can't dramatically increase capacity on Eglinton since there is no where for those additional people to go. Most would want to head south, but there is no room on the YUS southbound for them.

So subway on Eglinton isn't really 'needed' until you can alleviate YUS capacity issues - building the DRL. But once you've built the DRL, you've now got the option for all those extra people on Eglinton to make an alternate choice for heading downtown, negating the need for massive additional capacity through the central portion.

But anyone is free to believe that 'if you build it, they will come' and a subway line on Eglinton will result in massive development in short order that would overwhelm any line that isn't full HRT.

The design life of a subway is +100 years. You don't build a subway for the needs of today, you build it for the needs of tomorrow.

100+ years? Really? There are no significant tunnel overhauls/rebuilds needed before then? No complete redoing the track and track beds?

 

[rbt]

100+ years? Really? There are no significant tunnel overhauls/rebuilds needed before then? No complete redoing the track and track beds?

Not to mention that for better or worse, Eglinton tunnel is designed/being built to HRT level specs and will last exactly the same duration; perhaps even longer due to lighter-weight trains causing less vibration.

 

[gweed123]

^I always wondered why messaging boards (especially for newspapers) have more than their share of angry Libertarians.

I think it might have to do with the fact being online allows shut-ins to completely divorce themselves from society and erroneously believe that you can lead a decent life without community or government.

Just like Fox News

 

[Fantomex]

Like you and your cohorts are any better? Why I had to bring it to the mods attention just last night that The Mad Navigator refered to me and CC as c---suckers. When having to argue with juvenile minded individuals, it tends to affect your own brain cells as result.



Did you really think I'd come back here and make such statements if I wasn't prepared to back them up? You can see who favours light-rail construction: immediate area property owners; rail contractors like Siemens; and people who hate automobiles. If you are not in one of these groups -- if you are among the vast majority of Toronto taxpayers who use automobiles or HRT usbway transit for much of your travel -- then light rail will cost you far more than any benefits you will ever receive. Rail Disasters 2005 chronicles what has happened to every major city across America that has introduced light-rail into their transit networks, both old rail regions and new:
http://americandreamcoalition.org/RD2005.pdf - Pg. 7

Table One
Percent Growth in Driving, Transit Trips, and Transit Passenger Miles, 1983-2003
Driving Trips PM

Rail Regions
Atlanta 153.9 18.8 60.3
Baltimore 94.5 7.7 23.5
Boston 53.6 49.1 122.8
Buffalo 75.1 -50.1 -35.0
Chicago 68.2 -19.7 0.2
Cleveland 55.8 -42.5 -44.4
Dallas-Ft. Worth 93.5 92.2 92.3
Denver 75.4 61.1 48.2
Los Angeles 64.4 26.4 34.2
Miami 115.1 67.7 83.9
New Orleans 23.6 -24.3 -26.3
New York 11.2 4.0 15.1
Philadelphia 70.1 -7.9 6.2
Pittsburgh 42.2 -23.9 -31.6
Portland 129.2 112.9 108.3
Sacramento 94.5 110.3 51.6
Salt Lake City 91.2 75.9 124.3
San Diego 101.3 136.1 103.5
San Francisco 122.5 -13.8 122.1
San Jose 64.9 33.3 41.7
Seattle 81.0 59.0 -5.0
St. Louis 90.8 -16.5 29.7
Washington 104.4 53.3 117.5

Bus-Only Regions
Austin 160.1 522.4 639.9
Charlotte 181.2 115.0 239.8
Eugene 58.0 72.9 23.8
Houston 80.5 73.9 111.0
Las Vegas 354.1 1,239.0 1,161.2
Louisville 61.3 8.8 70.0
Phoenix 146.6 146.1 117.9
Raleigh-Durham 239.3 430.4 923.2

Source: Driving data from Highway Statistics, 1983 and 2003 editions, table HM-72; transit data from Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database, table 516083 for 1983; table 19 for 2003.
---

See the trends going on there? Light Rail-based networks have seen total transit usage haemorrhage meanwhile bus-based networks like Austin's has seen passenger growth at a rate 3x higher than that city's auto-driving growth.



GMAFB. I'm probably the most pro-transit oriented person here. I want better transit service everywhere, to every part of the City, not 51 kilometers of boondoggle that commuters would have to commute to to really benefit from it. You implement limited stopping BRT in a ROW along the outskirts of town feeding into an expanded subway system. It's not Rocket Science, and it's what the City would be building right now if David Miller didn't lowball and oversell the benefits of light-rail when we all have first hand experience with the failings of the existing LRV network. For Pete's sake, 77 Spadina was faster than the 510 and wouldn't already be requiring a massive renovation after only 13 years of service.

This 'report' is nothing more than some right-wing neoconservative pro-car bullshit that you dredged up in order to justify your hatred of Transit City and Mayor Miller. Face it: you know nothing about public transit other than you love subways and cars, and that's about it. You've lost the debate, big time.

 

[Fantomex]

That he wants to close TTC? Didn't he make it clear that he wanted to close most TTC routes at 10 pm, during the discussions in 2008 about extending service?

That's awfully big type. Are you trying to compensate for something?

He's trying to compensate for the fact that he has a small...well, you know.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Silly question: Does Rob Ford even use the TTC on a regular basis?

 

[gweed123]

Silly question: Does Rob Ford even use the TTC on a regular basis?

I would imagine he uses the TTC every year about as much as Harper prorogues parliament every year.

 

[nfitz]

... The guy is clearly totally and completely unsuited to the job, and is grossly incompetent. If his mayoralty is half as controversial as his term as councillor he would a complete and total embarrassment to this city, and it's citizens ... and I'm only talking on a personal level here.

Well there is always these 3 clowns...

Do you really think we'd have been worse off with any of those clown? Yes, I agree they are all clowns ... but even Mel Lastman never embarrassed Toronto anywhere near the degree that Rob Ford has.

Though I confess I failed to call it. Even I never expected that Rob Ford would have been this big of an international embarrassment.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Do you really think we'd have been worse off with any of those clown? Yes, I agree they are all clowns ... but even Mel Lastman never embarrassed Toronto anywhere near the degree that Rob Ford has.

Though I confess I failed to call it. Even I never expected that Rob Ford would have been this big of an international embarrassment.

At least, I have to give Rob Ford credit NOT to call in the army to help pick up the earthquake damage.

 

[nfitz]

At least, I have to give Rob Ford credit NOT to call in the army to help pick up the earthquake damage.

Ah, but we haven't gone down that path, as everytime Rob Ford sees snow, he's too wasted to dial the right number.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

^The mayor of our fair city can be legitiamtely called a clucker. How awesomely bizarre is that?1?!/ Talk about longevity: people still know who Marion Barry is and can recite his famous quote verbatim. I can't wait to see what gets inscribed on Rob Ford's tombstone. "I'm supposed to be some right wing... people expect... [insert bizarre, flailing hand, high as fuck hologram]"