someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Today:
|
|
|
junior43
Active Member
I know that the SAL article is what brought about this discussion this week, but I don't want to give her any more mouseclicks. Was she just raging to meet her daily quota, or was there a reason - i.e. is some part of this being voted on in council this week?
ehlow
Senior Member
There's tons of misinformation designed to stoke people's fears in that article and circulating around.
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Here is a closer look at the Yonge and Eg site from this afternoon:
andrewpmk
Senior Member
Because these projections are only realistic if hardly any development gets built along the line. If you run the ridership with low predictions of development then it gives a low number, if there is a lot of development it gives a high number. Pick whichever number makes your poorly designed plan look good. Technically you aren't "fudging" anything but you wonder whether the assumption of very low or very high development in a given area is realistic. Perhaps if there is another early 1990s recession then the low number makes sense and if there is an economic boom and unemployment goes down to 3% the high number is realistic?
Also, the former Richview Expressway runs parallel to the busiest section of Highway 401, which is the busiest section of highway on the planet. Did the model somehow underestimate the number of people who work near Pearson Airport or something? How can that section have only 2,000 riders/hour if the number of people who work in the airport area is a few orders of magnitude higher than that? Did the model completely ignore any bus connections between the western end of the line and various employment areas of Mississauga or something?
nfitz
Superstar
Given you've previously demonstrated you completely technically incompetent in theses areas, with your poorly-researched and erroneous comments, suddenly we're supposed to accept that your competent to make such comments?
To suggest that someone well known to have such integrity as David Miller would tamper with such a study to cook the results puts in well into nutbar territory. To believe that the professionals who completed the work would let such grossly unethical interference to take place, putting their careers and livelihood at risk, is so far beyond nutbar territory, that one can only assume that you are either institutionalized, or will be soon. The only other possible explanation is your trolling.
However, if you are sure of this, why not contact the appropriate regulatory authorities with your concerns, so they can discipline the professionals who committed such unethical acts. I doubt you'll actually do this, because you know your full of it.
andrewpmk
Senior Member
David Miller was really stubborn, seemed to have this weird insistence of using LRT for everything, and refused to consider subways, including for Eglinton. I don't think he really understood these issues very well.
My point with these ridership projections is that I think that they are only valid if there are relatively low levels of development along the line. It is very hard to predict the future but clearly if a lot of tall buildings get built along these lines, ridership will be much higher than projected. No one really knows how fast Toronto will be growing a few decades in the future, it is entirely possible that Toronto's growth will slow down dramatically (maybe the government reduces immigration levels or something). I don't think the Miller administration really put much effect into these projections, they were a very minor part of preparing the environmental assessments for these lines. Any projection, regardless of how well it is done, is going to have an enormous degree of uncertainty. You can never prove whether these projections are right or wrong until the line actually opens and we see how bad the overcrowding is. Also Highway 401 traffic is unbelievably bad - it can take 90 minutes to get from 410 to 404 in afternoon rush hour if there is bad weather - and I can't help but think that a huge number of people who work near the airport will use this line, unless there is some alternative (maybe a regular non premium fare GO train to the airport?). I could be wrong.
If LRT costs $5 billion and elevated rail which can carry more people costs $6 billion (for example), and you don't know what the ridership will be but say there is a 50% chance that it will be high and 50% chance it will be low, I think you are much better off with the higher capacity option.
StatGeek
Active Member
Agree fully on this, you listen to Ford (unfortunately most of the suburban councilors) they view the city where you visit for work or maybe get a quick drink or event but don't view it as an actual neighborhood that people live their lives in. The way they talk they only view it as an inconvinent nessesary form going to Point A to point B (their home)
Local stores get much more business with walking traffic and I think street cars/LRT are a great asset for a community, especially if TTC starts giving out time-based transfers where people can hop off and on. With car being a focus you might have one or two parking spots in front of your store, with an LRT or steetcar (with time based transfers) you have hundred of people passing by and the ability to easily leave the transit to the store front.
I always find it odd seeing councilors who community are constantly rated the worst in business (like Ford) telling other community that are doing much better like St Clair and Eglinton how they should run their community. St Clair is doing MUCH better since the ROW and I am sure the same will be said for Eglinton with the Crosstown.
andrewpmk
Senior Member
This comment is ridiculous. If the ridership projections are wrong, it is not the engineers' fault, it is the fault of the people who are riding the line, because too many people decided to ride the line. The engineer was given orders to design a LRT line that can carry maximum 10000/hour, if it carries more than that it is not their fault. The engineer's job is to make the line work to its designed specification and ensure that it is safe; since city council ordered them to build LRT, they build LRT. I don't think an engineer is doing anything wrong by creating a ridership projection that assumes that absolutely no new buildings will be built along Eglinton in the next 20 years, because that could happen, even if it doesn't seem very plausible. How much ridership a line will have largely depends on where people live and work. For instance, if everyone who works in Scarborough lives in Scarborough and everyone who works in Mississauga lives in Mississauga ridership on the Eglinton LRT will be low. If everyone who works in Scarborough lives in Mississauga and everyone who lives in Mississauga works in Scarborough then it will be severely over capacity. Even if we are absolutely certain about how much development will be built along a line, people can choose whether to live close to or far from their work and ridership will vary drastically depending on this.
salsa
Senior Member
Sooner or later he will start asking for Miller's birth certificate.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,452
- Reaction score
- 1,514
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
We had the opportunity to build subways years agao and we didn't David Miller chose LRT because we didn't have any money. People in suburban Toronto better stop talking outta both of their mouths, as their kids continue to move downtown and abandon Richview, Maple Glen, Agincourt because of their commute times that we are trying to improve on the cheap with LRT. If you want subways, pay up, or shut up and keep your regions lowest taxes.
aquateam
Active Member
He didn't so much refuse to consider subways as he refused to assume that all forms of transit have to be underground, cost be damned. Eglinton includes long portions where there is ample room to add a right of way. Given how precious transit dollars were, he tried to stretch them as far as possible by keeping it on the surface when possible.
You're right about projections being very uncertain. When Network 2011 was first proposed (with the Sheppard and Eglinton subways) the growth projections were wildly optimistic for NYCC, STC, ECC, etc. Only downtown has met (and exceeded) those levels of growth.
I think that the general idea with LRT is that, if we're lucky enough to reach capacity on Eglinton then that means it's time to construct a parallel rapid transit route, say on Lawrence, to bleed demand. It's better to have a network of rapid transit lines than one super high capacity line.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Miller refused to consider subways, except for, you know, the TYSSE.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
...and wonder if he was actually born in San Francisco and not another city in the Bay Area.
nfitz
Superstar
Why do you insist on saying such untruths? Miller pushed ahead with the Spadina line extension to Steeles ... and even played along with the unnecessary extension to Highway 7 the Ontario government insisted, committing that the entire operating subsidy for this line would be paid for by Toronto with no Region of York contribution.
In his first term, in 2004, he even pushed for the province to fund the Sheppard extension to Scarborough Centre. It was only after it was clear that such funding wasn't forthcoming, that they pushed ahead with LRT lines where they made more sense. However, he still advocated for a downtown relief line to be started around 2018 once the LRT lines were underway. When the province placed the DRL in the 25-year portion of the Big Move in 2008, Miller voted to request the province to move it to the 15-yer portion of the Big Move, so that it would be completed by 2023.
So where do you get off with these bald-faced lies that Miller insisted using LRT for everything, and refused to consider subways?
I don't think you understand these issues very well.
Last edited: