Originally posted by Tordan
One reason I support transit city is the expansion into low income neighborhoods of the city. Take Scarborough for example where there are many new immigrant families who rely solely on public transportation. Many of them currently spend hours commuting to work and back. Providing a more efficient means of transportation in places like these will help a large segment of the population be more productive and will in turn be good for the city in the long run. But you can thank Dalton McGuinty for breaking his promises and putting the entire project in jeopardy.
I blame the low income neighbourhoods for not providing enough tax dollars to fund their own transit lines. It's all their fault!
Posted by geroin on Sep-13-2010 21:51:
rocco rossi or whatever his name is actually proposed an extension to allen road putting through an underground tunnel that would go all the way until gardiner, that is actually pretty fucking sick if you ask me :O
All things that a street car cannot get out of the way of! So if they get buses sometimes, then they would get streetcars far more often, can be well observed downtown.
Have you ever seen a street car fail downtown during rush hour? It is pure chaos. I've said screw it, and just walked home from King and John to Roncy. I don't understand how this is even a debate. If it cannot get out of the way of an obstacle, then it is not very useful as a mode of transportation.
quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
counterpoints I've read have noted that streetcars have significantly higher capacity than buses and the newer ones will have even greater capacity.
thus the argument is that more buses would need to be on the road to move the same # of people as streetcars, which is highly relevant if you're comparing emissions, congestion, maintenance costs, labour costs (every vehicle needs a driver), etc.
That is only if you ignore, new designs in buses, and the greater space efficiency which is constantly being developed.
Why couldn't you have a bus with the same capacity? If you can have those trolly cars, then it seems very plausable to have higher capacity buses.
Sure introduce potential, and future streetcars into the debate, but don't make the same inclusion for buses. Posted by Jayx1 on Sep-14-2010 14:18:
quote:
Originally posted by geroin
rocco rossi or whatever his name is actually proposed an extension to allen road putting through an underground tunnel that would go all the way until gardiner, that is actually pretty fucking sick if you ask me :O
They need to expand the 400/black creek dr expressway
The allen was a good idea when it was possible to build it into york region. But thats no longer possible.
Posted by Sly_Guy on Sep-14-2010 14:39:
Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars!
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
I love it!!!
Its everything ive been saying for years and more!
-subways not streetcars
-removing streetcars and replacing with buses
-making parking signs easier to read
-SCOOT technology to synchronize traffic lights
-Bike lanes along corridors and only when they add to, and not reduce capacity
-raising extra money through private sector deals
-keeping the gardiner (all that tearing down the portion east of the DVP has done is given us more red lights and easier access to canadian tire!)
And something i never thought of which i love:
Colour coded curbing to make it easier to determine if you can or cannot park on the street.
I'm ok with streetcars on dedicated lanes, such as what they're doing to st clair. I mean, com'on, you already needed an off-road vehicle to go anywhere on that street anyway, so why not just make it a major public transit route.
But either way, more money in transportation is a necessity, unfortunately, these are likely empty campaign promises.
Posted by Jayx1 on Sep-14-2010 14:42:
Re: Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars!
quote:
Originally posted by Sly_Guy
I'm ok with streetcars on dedicated lanes, such as what they're doing to st clair. I mean, com'on, you already needed an off-road vehicle to go anywhere on that street anyway, so why not just make it a major public transit route.
But either way, more money in transportation is a necessity, unfortunately, these are likely empty campaign promises.
because it destroyed businesses and cost at least twice as much as originally planned. And it took up valuable surface space. A precious commodity in any city.
Posted by smuncky on Nov-10-2010 21:38:
Posted by geroin on Nov-10-2010 21:51:
quote:
Originally posted by smuncky
umm ok.. because in every other city in north america a streetcar blocks the traffic for shitload of cars behind it causing more pollution from those cars and more congestion on the roads. A street car should be available on a road that has enough space to fit a dedicated lane for it. ie spadina.
Posted by The Potter on Nov-10-2010 23:44:
LOL at that satirical video.
quote:
Originally posted by geroin
umm ok.. because in every other city in north america a streetcar blocks the traffic for shitload of cars behind it causing more pollution from those cars and more congestion on the roads. A street car should be available on a road that has enough space to fit a dedicated lane for it. ie spadina.
Haha, you are sounding a bit like the brown bear in the video ;-)
I am not one for anecdotal evidence. I am assuming that quite a detailed cost-benefit analysis must have been undertaken in order for N. American cities that previously replaced streetcars with buses, to now revert back to them.
Just as I don't claim to know more about medicine than a doctor, I will also not argue with the majority view of urban planners, since I do not have the time nor inclination to get a PhD. These experts have conducted the research to back up their views of what is the most efficient transportation plan, unlike the brown bear. Frankly. if they deem that cars and buses should be used instead of streetcars, then so be it.
Posted by Jayx1 on Nov-11-2010 00:15:
quote:
Originally posted by smuncky
i love the list of cities they mention. All small or smallish medium sized cities. Also they confuse the two issues. One is in regards to streetcars without right of ways blocking cars and causing congestion. Then they fuse that with LRTs that would have dedicated right of ways. This cartoon deliberately confuses the two separate issues.
1) There would be extra buses added but they would not cause nearly as much traffic chaos as street cars blocking all lanes every few blocks
2) LRTs can encourage growth but streetcars themselves (without right of ways) do not.
3) Cities like New York are not building many new subways because they already have them! Most other cities in N america dont have the population and traffic density that we do. LA and washington have opened new subway SYSTEMS in the last 20 years. (not mentioned in the cartoon). As for Jersey City, they have trains and subways already serving them. A short LRT line in their instance is a perfect compliment to their extensive rail networks (tied in to new york city)
No one mentioned about all the cities in asia, south america and europe that are still building major subway systems as they are the best way to move a lot of people around. Subways are the backbone of a major city's transit system. LRTs are always an add on. LRTs are only the backbone in places like portland, calgary, seattle and so on that no one could every credibly argue comes close to matching the population and density of Toronto.
4) The contracts for the Eglinton line can be changed. The tunneling machines purchased can actually be used to build a subway. I honestly think the eglinton subway should be built.
Funny how the elites are running scared. Ive heard through the wind that once the books are opened up there will be some major scandals unveiled. No wonder everyone is crying chicken little! This should be interesting folks!
Posted by smuncky on Nov-11-2010 01:59:
quote:
Originally posted by The Potter
LOL at that satirical video.
Haha, you are sounding a bit like the brown bear in the video ;-)
I am not one for anecdotal evidence. I am assuming that quite a detailed cost-benefit analysis must have been undertaken in order for N. American cities that previously replaced streetcars with buses, to now revert back to them.
Just as I don't claim to know more about medicine than a doctor, I will also not argue with the majority view of urban planners, since I do not have the time nor inclination to get a PhD. These experts have conducted the research to back up their views of what is the most efficient transportation plan, unlike the brown bear. Frankly. if they deem that cars and buses should be used instead of streetcars, then so be it.
sounds like an lefty elitist.
Posted by goodnet on Nov-11-2010 03:31:
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
4) The contracts for the Eglinton line can be changed.
Hope you're right!
Posted by pozz on Nov-11-2010 04:52:
Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars!
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
-raising extra money through private sector deals
everything sounds good. but this one thing is going to fuck shit up.
Posted by Jayx1 on Nov-11-2010 12:39:
Re: Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars!
quote:
Originally posted by pozz
everything sounds good. but this one thing is going to fuck shit up.
how so?
raising money through private sector deals can include selling ad space, selling off excess land, providing more commercial areas in stations (ie renting out store locations.) etc etc. How is this bad?
Posted by smuncky on Nov-11-2010 14:04:
Re: Re: Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars!
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
how so?
raising money through private sector deals can include selling ad space, selling off excess land, providing more commercial areas in stations (ie renting out store locations.) etc etc. How is this bad?
now tell us all how much money that would give us.
see that's the whole thing that was wrong with ford's campaign. there were no concrete answers as to how he would do the things he said he would. the only thing i heard was STOP THE GRAVY TRAIN. every single time he spoke, it was always with the gravy train.
there were no numbers involved. and when they were given, they were underestimated. building a sheppard line in 4 years? yeh good luck with that.
genralizations are fine and good, but i think it's time to get into the real world and actually find out how much money will be saved on certain things and how much money certain things will cost.
Posted by Intangible on Nov-11-2010 14:16:
Lmao that video is awesome
Posted by w_ashley on Nov-11-2010 17:26:
Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars!
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
I love it!!!
Its everything ive been saying for years and more!
-subways not streetcars
-removing streetcars and replacing with buses
-making parking signs easier to read
-SCOOT technology to synchronize traffic lights
-Bike lanes along corridors and only when they add to, and not reduce capacity
-raising extra money through private sector deals
-keeping the gardiner (all that tearing down the portion east of the DVP has done is given us more red lights and easier access to canadian tire!)
And something i never thought of which i love:
Colour coded curbing to make it easier to determine if you can or cannot park on the street.
Most of this is pretty good except it takes away two things.
1. The "tourism" aspect of streetcars. - it'd still be good to run them for festivities and special events. Perhaps even when roads are blocked for parades etc.. - this s far more common in other countries and well received. Like every weekend.
2. Bike lanes make little difference having them actually makes things more complex because bikes can go on any road anyway. Otherwise it becomes a bylaw issue on a road by road basis and this weill be confusing to cyclists and create potential dangerious situations. The bike lane migration is just a gradual sign that at some point bike lanes will be turned into the "only legal lanes" - and this is removing a lot of cyclists rights, as they are considered equal to a motor vehicle on many fronts while on a roadway.
I also can't stand parking in Toronto - it is just out of order more free public parking locations need to be made. This probably won't happen but it really detracts from driving to TO especially when there are different "types" of parking - and out of towners probably have no clue on how multilayered parking is. More underground development needs to happen.
More underground parking garages. parkings spots are ALWAYS full. downtown, rates are also gouging. it is really unfortunate that the city isn't more people friendly. Toronto gets an F on parking and likely won't improve by adding colours. The fact you need colours to park only shows how messed up it is.
Posted by Spam on Nov-11-2010 20:35:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars!
quote:
Originally posted by smuncky
now tell us all how much money that would give us.
see that's the whole thing that was wrong with ford's campaign. there were no concrete answers as to how he would do the things he said he would. the only thing i heard was STOP THE GRAVY TRAIN. every single time he spoke, it was always with the gravy train.
there were no numbers involved. and when they were given, they were underestimated. building a sheppard line in 4 years? yeh good luck with that.
genralizations are fine and good, but i think it's time to get into the real world and actually find out how much money will be saved on certain things and how much money certain things will cost.
Since when to liberals care about how things are going to be paid for? We just had 8 years of nutjobbery running Toronto, the city will survive 4 years of Rob Ford.
Posted by The Potter on Nov-11-2010 21:49:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars!
quote:
Originally posted by Spam
Since when to liberals care about how things are going to be paid for? We just had 8 years of nutjobbery running Toronto, the city will survive 4 years of Rob Ford.
But that is precisely the point; he supposedly cares more about how things are paid for. If your whole campaign and poltical philosophy is based on distinguishing yourself from the liberals, by specifically doing more than the Liberals to cut government spending/'the gravy train', then to prove that it is not just hollow rhetoric aimed at getting you into power, you had better make damn sure that your all-important budgets are better costed than your rivals. The issue is not about surviving 4 years of Rob Ford, it is about him being held accountable for the seemingly oxymoronic promise to stop the gravy train/government spending, whilst still undertaking huge capital projects. I, for one, hope he pull off this Holy Grail of accounting, finance and economics; otherwise, he is destined to look like so many of the Conservatives' 'fiscally responsible' poster boys, like Reagan and Bush.
Posted by MarkT on Nov-11-2010 21:56:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars!
quote:
Originally posted by Spam
Since when to liberals care about how things are going to be paid for? We just had 8 years of nutjobbery running Toronto, the city will survive 4 years of Rob Ford.
ad hominem?
it would be awesome if Ford's critics could just get concrete answers to the question...but since Ford himself doesn't seem to have them, I don't expect his supporters to have them either, lol.
Posted by smuncky on Nov-12-2010 02:03:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rob Ford's transportation platform, more subways and buses, fewer streetcars
quote:
Originally posted by The Potter
But that is precisely the point; he supposedly cares more about how things are paid for. If your whole campaign and poltical philosophy is based on distinguishing yourself from the liberals, by specifically doing more than the Liberals to cut government spending/'the gravy train', then to prove that it is not just hollow rhetoric aimed at getting you into power, you had better make damn sure that your all-important budgets are better costed than your rivals. The issue is not about surviving 4 years of Rob Ford, it is about him being held accountable for the seemingly oxymoronic promise to stop the gravy train/government spending, whilst still undertaking huge capital projects. I, for one, hope he pull off this Holy Grail of accounting, finance and economics; otherwise, he is destined to look like so many of the Conservatives' 'fiscally responsible' poster boys, like Reagan and Bush.
that's precisely it. otherwise, he just BS'd everything just so he could get into the mayor's seat.
quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
ad hominem?
it would be awesome if Ford's critics could just get concrete answers to the question...but since Ford himself doesn't seem to have them, I don't expect his supporters to have them either, lol.
i still haven't recieved an answer by jay or anyone else over some of his numbers back in the other ford thread. i think it's been a month or so. i figured by this time, they'd at least make some sort of attempt to explain to us all how ford came up with those numbers.
Posted by icanfeelthebeat on Nov-12-2010 02:57:
