|
York U subway extension? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
agreed that a link to the airport is certainly needed...though, as mentioned, it would be a HELL of a lot more than 1.5 billion. |
I disagree. The Union/Pearson link cost would be recovered in half the time of a Downsview/York link. |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I disagree. The Union/Pearson link cost would be recovered in half the time of a Downsview/York link. |
I agree with this. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dark_Archonis
It's about damn time! Many of you may not like the Liberals, but they're a hell of a lot better than the Conservatives, especially for cities.
Do you want to know why the Conservatives did not even win one seat in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal in the Federal election? That's because their platform does not meet the needs of big cities. |
For partisan dogma see above.
Hello! Your statement shows a clear confusion between federal and provincial politics and policy (which any Canadian knows are two very different beasts).
Provincial Conservatives are very much pro-Toronto and pro-cities. Alluding to any connection between the policy and opinion of the federal and provincial conservatives is irresponsible. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
extension expensive as hell!!! 1.5B is alot for "just" 6.2 kms of subway.
but good thing for you guys! |
i agree.. i wonder how much other cities pay for extensions.. seems like pulling teeth whenever it's TO..
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
This is absurd.
TO needs an airport link, not a link to a university. |
it needs both
anyone remember this.. ? hehe ..
|
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I disagree. The Union/Pearson link cost would be recovered in half the time of a Downsview/York link. |
I said the airport link would cost more than 1.5 billion...I didn't say more people would use the York line...and I think that's a safe bet, no?
if the TTC reaps the rewards with more ridership on an airport link, that doesn't necessarily put the money back into gov't coffers (since the gov't is expected to shoulder the costs of either project, right?)
IMHO, the private sector needs to be involved...let deep pocketed corporations front some of the money...Rogers, Bell, developers, sports teams, etc. and let them plaster the route with whatever marketing they want..."the Rogers airport link"! |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I said the airport link would cost more than 1.5 billion...I didn't say more people would use the York line...and I think that's a safe bet, no? |
Usage has nothing to do with it. Time to recover investment has EVERYTHING to do with it (especially in a cash-strapped governmental environment).
Project financing would be simple of gov'ts looked at projects like this (sell bonds @ 5% to finance the project, include bond interest and repayment in ROI time frame).
Even if (I believe the cost would be less) there was additional cost in a Union/Pearson link - it would still recover costs faster than a university/york region link.
Consider a $35 cab ride vs. a $10 train ride (a la BART in SF). |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
i agree.. i wonder how much other cities pay for extensions.. seems like pulling teeth whenever it's TO..
|
people always say the same over here too, everything seems under budgeted or just too expensive.
our latest extension, 5.2kms, 3 stations, one tunnel under the river = 800M$. |
|
|
| Cribby |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
[/color] |
:wtf: Way too confusing...just imagine the increase in rate of lost old women! lol |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cribby
:wtf: Way too confusing...just imagine the increase in rate of lost old women! lol |
confusing? lol.. hav u been to NYC, London, Paris or Toyko.. ?? forget lost old women !!
|
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
For partisan dogma see above.
Hello! Your statement shows a clear confusion between federal and provincial politics and policy (which any Canadian knows are two very different beasts).
Provincial Conservatives are very much pro-Toronto and pro-cities. Alluding to any connection between the policy and opinion of the federal and provincial conservatives is irresponsible. |
I disagree. I am not confused at all. Maybe you misread the article, because it talked about how they're hoping to get provincial and federal funding for this project. Federal funding would have been much more likely if there was a Federal Liberal government right now, instead of a Conservative government.
Furthermore, federal and provincial politics may deal with different issues, and have differences on many levels, but at the end, a Liberal government, be it provincial or federal, will have similar views and ideals. Likewise with a federal and provincial Conservative government.
I made my original statement somewhat alluding to all the foolish people in the city who cried out "enough with the Liberals, vote Conservative".
Before you make any more statements, did you actually read the platforms that the Conservatives and Liberals had for the Federal election? The Liberal platform was *much* more geared toward cities, dealing with a lot of specific issues like transit, health care, income tax. The Conservative platform dealt with many issues that were not important to cities like Toronto, or with issues that were of relevance, the Conservative platform proposed with solving the issues or dealing with them in less than ideal ways.
Go talk to any political expert or Professor, and they will tell you there will be problems with a Conservative Federal government, and provincial Liberal government.
I'd rather have the Liberals be in power both at the Federal and provincial levels, because there would be some unity and understanding among both governments. Having a Conservative government at both levels would not be of any good.
I'd definitely rather not have a Conservative government, especially after all the problems that Brian Mulroney and his highly corrupt government caused, not to mention Mike Harris. Most of the decay in social programs and social support, as well as infrastructure to an extent, can be attributed to Conservatives (Mike Harris at the provincial level) and Brian Mulroney as PM. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| ^'Course, you forgot to mention that before Harris Conservatives, Bob Rae and NDP in power. Oh, and a recession. |
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
^'Course, you forgot to mention that before Harris Conservatives, Bob Rae and NDP in power. Oh, and a recession. |
Don't make this lop-sided.
The country was in debt, and not only did Mulroney fail to eliminate it, but during his stay in power, it increased substantially.
What about the huge amount of privatization that he made with crown corporations?
Economic recession occured more so in the second term of Mulroney's stay in power, less so during his first term. So in anything, Mulroney simply added to the recession, instead of minimizing it.
Mulroney tried to "improve" the economic problems of Canada by incresing taxes, such as adding the GST, but that failed miserably.
After Mulroney retired, during the next election, a stunning lop-sided loss resulted for the Conservatives. The party was reduced to two seats. |
|
|
|
|
