|
York U subway extension? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
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). |
usage has quite a bit to do with it, from the standpoint of transit riders and the TTC, I suspect. We don't need another Sheppard line that cost a fortune and who's ridership was woefully below expectations. I think it's safe to say that this extension will be well used.
this line would also result in a major hub that could link the 905 to Toronto. What is up there right now? Finch Station which is hardly a "hub" and doesn't even reach the Toronto border. The GTA needs major hubs to link the various transit systems of surrounding regions and a hub by York would serve that purpose well for the 905 north of the city.
I think we clearly need an airport link as well...but I take issue with you calling this project "absurd" when it is anything but! It's a great project that should have been started years ago if our various levels of gov't had any foresight at all. |
|
|
| Orko |
THe York U transit 'station' is already a huge hub for travel. The biggest problem with it, is that all these different lines and vehicles rely on the road, and not rails. Since they rely on the road, they are subject to slow downs, and congestion which is the initial problem.
Adding a rail system to the mix, would certainly allow people to stay on schedual. The more people that can stay on schedual, the more satisfied the community will be as a whole.
I understand that a airport link is important, but does anybody have any figures in terms of the amount of people who want, or use public transit to and from the airport now? I see the YorkU hub as a more important addition to the transport system. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
I understand that a airport link is important, but does anybody have any figures in terms of the amount of people who want, or use public transit to and from the airport now? I see the YorkU hub as a more important addition to the transport system. |
Debatable.
Pearson is one busy airport of significant economic importance to Toronto. If you think YorkU subway will ease traffic, what about all those people getting to Pearson using cars right now? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
The whole city needs to be rebuilt. Starting with ditching this useless mayor in November.
After that maybe we can actually start to have progress around here again. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Debatable.
Pearson is one busy airport of significant economic importance to Toronto. If you think YorkU subway will ease traffic, what about all those people getting to Pearson using cars right now? |
I was just looking at a map of the area. I was thinking the airport was further away from a rail system than it actually was:
map
I guess running a line under the 427, or even above ground(beside) would be good, to meet up with the Bloor line.
I still need to see figures, before I could say which one is more usefull, although I am in favour of the York line, because I am more likely to use it. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
I still need to see figures, before I could say which one is more usefull, although I am in favour of the York line, because I am more likely to use it. |
And there's the crux of the matter; of course you're more than likely to support the one that'll benefite you the most. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's just so... human. :) |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
And there's the crux of the matter; of course you're more than likely to support the one that'll benefite you the most. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's just so... human. :) |
Haha, so true, it completely is. It is funny how we can feel dirty for being human.
But, thats how our system is set up right? We vote for what we want, and the majority wins. Thats the only way it can work. |
|
|
| smuncky |
subway to pearson would be useless
now a LRT line would be perfect |
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Funny. I was thinking the same about you. (minus the insult part) |
Snobby attitude, and I'm insecure? That's nice of you to think all of that up, but how about you find some proof? I may be opinionated, but not snobby. I believe you're mistaking me for all of the other snobby members on this site. I certainly hope you're not one of them.
I did not insult anyone, and tried to stick to the facts, in terms of what the Liberals and Conservatives have or haven't done for Ontario, and for Canada. |
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Its true that the Liberals TALKED about cities for years. Much more than the federal conservatives. But talk is cheap. What have they actually done for toronto? NOTHING thats what. OK fine, when pressed to the wall in a minority government after 11 years of doing nothing they promise a small share of the gas taxes. BIG DEAL. The federal liberals did more to DAMAGE toronto than anyone else starting with the downloading of healthcare and social housing on to the province which then had little choice but to share those costs with the cities.
The Liberals talk alot, but talk is cheap. I still remember the day that Chretien, Harris and Lastman broke ground on the waterfront. Well Harris wasnt around much longer after that but Chretien was and where are we today? Fighting about 100 metre long bridges and airports!! |
On the flipside, what did the provincial Conservatives do for Toronto under Mike Harris? Let's see, they spearheaded the amalgamation of all the districts in the GTA, and Toronto became the "mega city". That did not actually do anything good for Toronto. It created a lot of problems, specifically in budget shortfalls. Shall I mention what else Mike Harris "did" for Ontario, and for Toronto?
I'm not saying that the Liberals are great, and the Conservatives are horrible, but the Liberals in this case are the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
This statement right here proves how misinformed you really are.
-NAFTA was signed sealed and delivered by your friend Mr Chretien (after he promised to scrap free trade in opposition).
-We already have privatized health care. This is why i need a $150 a month private medical plan for all kinds of things OHIP wont cover. If thats not two tier i dont know what is! BTW your liberal friends' second act in power provincially was to delist a whole host of medical procedures thus creating EVEN MORE two tier health.
-Yes, the last time i checked the US was our friend. They arent perfect and we should stand up for our rights. But id rather have them as our neighbour than many other countries out there. We depend on them for our economic survival.
-Down with welfare? NO way! Most conservatives support welfare. They just support it's abuse.
So think before you make misinformed comments such as the ones you just made because it only makes you look the fool. |
Here's something you probably didn't know.
The FTA (free trade agreement) was reached by the US and Canada in 1987, while Mulroney was in power. It was meant to fully take effect over a period of 10 years.
NAFTA was an expansion of the FTA, and it too was initiated (key word here) by *Conservative* governments in the US and Canada. It went into effect in 1994, but was initiated by Mulroney and Bush Sr. beforehand. Besides, as it is an expansion of the FTA, the FTA was again supported by the Conservatives.
Now it is true that historically, Conservatives opposed free trade, but since the 80s, they've mostly supported it. It is ironic then that Murloney initally opposed it, but then not only supported it, but signed off for both the FTA and for NAFTA.
Chretien, although he was far from a good leader, could not just stop free trade after Mulroney had advanced it so far with the US.
Two tier is different than going to a mostly private system. Yes, we already have a two-tier system, but Harper and the Conservatives want to advance beyond this to an even more privatized system.
Stand up for our rights? What does that have to do with the US? If anything, Americans have less rights than we do, and I'm happy I live in Canada, which leans more towards a socialist type country.
Last time I checked, Mike Harris and his provincial Conservatives made steep cuts to education, welfare, and Medicare. |
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Debatable.
Pearson is one busy airport of significant economic importance to Toronto. If you think YorkU subway will ease traffic, what about all those people getting to Pearson using cars right now? |
Pearson is surrounded by two highways, and it's network of roads was recently rebuilt and expanded.
Many of you are also forgetting that in and around the York Keele Campus, there is Keele and Steeles. If you didn't know, both are two of the busiest streets in Toronto. There's a lot of traffic that not just for York, but traffic going through that area, as well as lots of industrial and commercial vehicles.
Mayor Miller was recently on CityPulse, and as much as I'd like that guy to get out of office already, he did say something understandable. He was actually asked a question regarding the subway, and why it's being extended to York U, as opposed to being extended into Scarborough, or the Yonge Line to go North. An airport link was not mentioned, but it would follow similar logic to a Scarborough or Yonge Line extension.
Miller said that the York extension is more advanced than any other proposal, with environmental assessments completed. He also said that right now Downsview station is in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by Downsview Park, and Idomo. He said that the York extension makes sense financially, because it's a continuation of the Downsview line to a more meaningful hub, which would be Steeles Station. This extension to York and to Steeles is relatively short, and would be the least expensive extension, compared to other proposals like Scarborough, the Yonge Line going North, or the most expensive by far, an airport link.
As mentioned previously, the Scarborough RT would have to be replaced or torn down, and a subway cannot be built along that same route, because the turns are too sharp for a subway. The Yonge Line is already near capacity, and it will really help the TTC financially if the Downsview line was utilized more. Considering the lack of funding the city of Toronto and the TTC have, the York U extension is the most reasonable in this case.
The York U extension would be serving a lot of people in and around York, not to mention the Steeles station would be a much bigger hub that Downsview currently is. |
|
|
|
|
