|
Public Transit: BRT and LRT vs. Subway (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
what does that have to do with pitfield?
|
it means that when people say "I will not touch x", sometimes they touch x. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
i dont think she would. Ive listened to her talk about it. She said it would be a waste of money and that the money could be better spent on expanding transit.
She fundamentally believes that the car should go hand in hand with transit. Thats why i trust her on this and not miller who is as anti car as they get |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I like her idea about the homeless problem as well as transit. 1 km of subway per year for 25 years sounds reasonable.
|
heres some good info on that. im sry that im quoting alot, but there are ppl that know a lot more about transit than i do and say it better than i ever would.
| quote: | We hear a lot from subway advocates about the need for an ongoing project to expand the subway system. Leaving aside the question of how we will pay for it, what would we actually see for our efforts?
The building rate proposed is two km/year. If we were going to build west from Yonge Street and we started today, it would be late 2010 before we reached Jane Street, late 2014 to reach the western boundary of the city, somewhere like the airport for example. Every penny we could scrounge would go into that line, and by 2015 we would still have big transit problems in most of the city. This assumes we start tomorrow, and we all know that nothing will happen for at least two years while we debate where the line will go, design it and get EA approval.
If we are serious about expanding the transit network in a meaningful timeframe, we have two choices:
build much more than two km/year and be prepared to pay for it, or
use something other than subways to expand transit capacity, and build lots of that.
Mayoral hopefuls and other subway advocates need to be honest about the costs and benefits of their plans. The two km rate was once floated by Rick Ducharme, back when we actually thought that would cost $200-million or so. The Sheppard Subway, our most recent project, was 6 km long and cost us almost $1-billion not including the vehicles that were purchased separately. Even allowing for the huge expense of the junction at Yonge Street, $200-million hasn’t bought two km of subway for a long time.
|
http://www.stevemunro.ca/?p=243 |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
but what he doesnt mention is that we should have done this in the 70s.
I am of the "better late than never" mindset.
We shouldnt let our past laziness be an excuse to be lazy today. Yes we do have to play catchup but thats the price we are going to have to pay for our mismanagement.
It all started in the 70s when they cancelled the freeway/transit plans that toronto had all laid out.
Furthermore we could afford this if we didnt waste so much money in toronto. look at the 200 million dollar useless st clair right of way that no one wants for starters. Not to mention all the former metro buildings that could be sold. And dont even get me started on the union waste |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
but what he doesnt mention is that we should have done this in the 70s.
I am of the "better late than never" mindset.
We shouldnt let our past laziness be an excuse to be lazy today. Yes we do have to play catchup but thats the price we are going to have to pay for our mismanagement.
It all started in the 70s when they cancelled the freeway/transit plans that toronto had all laid out.
Furthermore we could afford this if we didnt waste so much money in toronto. look at the 200 million dollar useless st clair right of way that no one wants for starters. Not to mention all the former metro buildings that could be sold. And dont even get me started on the union waste |
exactly, but i dont think pitfield has a timemachine to change all that. if after reading those stats and all the other material i posted, u still believe she is right about 2km/year, then ur not looking at transit as a whole. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| i think she said 1 km a year |
|
|
| mute79 |
i always wondered why TTC never utilized BRT... It's a proven, cheap and reliable, and most of all enviro friendly
as for cars, there need to be less cars on the road cuz you can never build enough roads... people have to change their driving habits altogether... you can't have families living in suburbs with 3 cars and all of them driving down into the city individually |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
i always wondered why TTC never utilized BRT... It's a proven, cheap and reliable, and most of all enviro friendly
as for cars, there need to be less cars on the road cuz you can never build enough roads... people have to change their driving habits altogether... you can't have families living in suburbs with 3 cars and all of them driving down into the city individually |
but the idea should be to improve transit to make people want to leave their cars at home.
Miller's idea is to make driving difficult so that people will use a service that no one wants to take because its inefficient. |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i think she said 1 km a year |
LOL at 1km. i can just imagine how useless that would be. jsut like 2km is.
| quote: | | Instead, Pitfield wants Toronto to build two kilometers of subway line a year for the next 25 years. “Surface transit contributes to gridlock. Subways move a lot of people very quickly and efficiently, and reduce the amount of traffic on our roads.” |
http://www.janepitfieldformayor.com/policystclair.html |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
had we started that 1 km a year in 1970 like we should have wed have a lot of subway by now. |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
had we started that 1 km a year in 1970 like we should have wed have a lot of subway by now. |
ok? we shouldve done a lot of things back then. :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
