All aboard for more subways

[gweed123]

road space is vital. That is why you maximize road space by building ROW's for transit. One Transit vehicle carry a lot more passengers than a car. Efficient use of road space. You argument is so anti-transit it's funny.

Again, I fail to see why having the transit for that corridor someplace OTHER than directly on the road is anti-transit. How in the world can putting a higher capacity line UNDERNEATH a roadway be anti-transit? And what's so wrong about making a roadway more efficient for vehicle flow? Is increasing a roadway's theoretical capacity by taking buses (or streetcars) off of it, moving those passengers underground, AND adding passenger capacity to that transit corridor anti-transit? Again, your arguments are completely fallacious.

PS: My points are not only for subways. Heck, you can build the line in a trench a few metres away from the road, elevate it above the road, what-have-you. I just refuse to accept your point that the only way to not be seen as anti-transit and pro-car is to put the transit down the middle of the street to create a nice European avenue.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

This is just what the LRT or nothing megalomaniacs want you to think. Subways are impossible, we can't afford them, so don't question the multi-billion dollar LRT plan we've put together.

Yes, I'm such an LRT megalomaniac. You, and the majority of users here are so closed minded on this issue, there isn't much point to argue is there?

But it just so happens that funding for major transit expansion projects won't be available for a few years and the main proponents of the LRT plan in politics have a few months left in office.

Well, lucky for you. Looks like the do as little as possible option will continue on as usual (along with all the political squabble trimmings)!

 

[Justin10000]

He's not trying to get transit out the way of cars, he's trying to get cars out of the way of transit! There's a big difference.

LOL. Best comment! Build subways, because we need to get cars out of the way of transit! HA! Subway quote of the day!

And did I miss a whole paragraph on the Avenue Road subway? Because I definitely didn't read that. And why does someone running in a ward that already has a subway make his opinion on subway expansion invalid? Should the only people allowed to comment on LRT expansion those who live along the Waterfront, Spadina, and St. Clair? Granted they aren't full LRTs, but they're the closest thing we have to it.

The Avenue road comment was sarcasm. Avenue road runs through Ward 22, where else would you put a subway in that ward?
What I find funny, is you guys are so desperate to find support for subways, you would latch onto anyone who promotes subways, even candidates who obviously have no vested interest in transit. Chris Sellors could care less about transit, since His ward already has good transit. The article is clearly a message to voters that he is opposes any things Miller did. Just reading that article is good indicator the guy a pro-business, pro-auto conservative. And we all know how much Conservatives love subways.
You guys latched onto Mammoti, Rossi, Thomson, and now Sellors.

 

[nfitz]

What would have happend if the same requirements for subways that exist now existed in the 60s?

What do you mean? Currently we talk about the lower end cut-of for subways being about 10,000 people per hour, and we look at about 20 years in the future to meet that.

When you start looking at documents from the 1960s, they talk about subways not being economical until they reach about 20,000 people per hour (and streetcars reaching their limit at 10,000 people per hour). The lines that were built or started construction in the 1960s all achieved this standard within 20 years.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

What would have happend if the same requirements for subways that exist now existed in the 60s? How well would this city work with a Bloor-Danforth LRT, that is tunnelled from Jane to Victoria Park, and then ran at-grade the rest of the way, with only a fraction of the capacity that B-D currently has?

When B-D was built, it didn't even meet the ridership projection requirements to build subway that we have now.

Oh, back then when construction materials were cheap and high priced private consultants weren't so much involved in building our subways.....

<Sings> Those were the days! </Sings>

 

[nfitz]

... and high priced private consultants weren't so much involved in building our subways..... <Sings> Those were the days! </Sings>

Surely the consultants were more likely to both high and priced back in the 1960s than today; but perhaps not as high-priced.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ That was in the days with fare zones when subways weren't extended unless they were 'profitable'. Do you really want that kind of constraint put on transit expansion again?

 

[gweed123]

LOL. Best comment! Build subways, because we need to get cars out of the way of transit! HA! Subway quote of the day!

Even with a dedicated ROW, LRT vehicles will still have to stop at red lights, and be subjected to accidents, car stalls, and any other number of factors relating to cars and traffic. Taking the car out of the equation solves that problem. So technically speaking, it IS the cars that are getting in the way of transit.

The Avenue road comment was sarcasm. Avenue road runs through Ward 22, where else would you put a subway in that ward?
What I find funny, is you guys are so desperate to find support for subways, you would latch onto anyone who promotes subways, even candidates who obviously have no vested interest in transit. Chris Sellors could care less about transit, since His ward already has good transit. The article is clearly a message to voters that he is opposes any things Miller did. Just reading that article is good indicator the guy a pro-business, pro-auto conservative. And we all know how much Conservatives love subways.
You guys latched onto Mammoti, Rossi, Thomson, and now Sellors.

So you're assuming because it is a candidate that supports subways that he wants subways ONLY for his ward? How political of you. The majority of this article is about a long-term vision for the city, not about petty ward politics. Subways are a better long term investment, period.

And let's face it, you LRT-istas praise the ground people like Miller and Giambrone walk on, so please don't say that we're "latching on".

 

[The Mad Navigator]

he's trying to get cars out of the way of transit! There's a big difference.

Yeah, temporarily, so that means, he's not because the road space will be returned after construction. Nice try.

 

[gweed123]

What do you mean? Currently we talk about the lower end cut-of for subways being about 10,000 people per hour, and we look at about 20 years in the future to meet that.

When you start looking at documents from the 1960s, they talk about subways not being economical until they reach about 20,000 people per hour (and streetcars reaching their limit at 10,000 people per hour). The lines that were built or started construction in the 1960s all achieved this standard within 20 years.

The low-end cutoff may be 10,000 pph, but what's the upper cut-off for LRT? 25,000 pph-is (depending on various factors, in-median is around 20,000 pph)? Hence, unless the projected capacity is above 25,000 pph, the argument would be made today that LRT is the more efficient solution. And that's my point, a lot of these TC lines COULD work as subways, and they COULD work as LRTs. However, history has taught us that 40yrs down the road, we're glad we built that extra capacity, or the potential for that extra capacity.

 

[gweed123]

Yeah, temporarily, so that means, he's not because the road space will be returned after construction. Nice try.

Again, why is that a bad thing? You've got a subway line running under the roadway, how is that anti-transit? Why is anything that would benefit drivers AS WELL as transit users anti-transit? Heck, if you wanted to you could put in bike lanes, seeing as how the road would likely need to be resurfaced anyway. In fact, I'd be 100% in support of that.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

And let's face it, you LRT-istas praise the ground people like Miller and Giambrone walk on, so please don't say that we're "latching on".

Yes because Miller and Giambrone (God and Demi-God as you imply) invented Light Rail Transit to punish all commuting citizens.

Closed minded ftw gweed?

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

"<Sings> Those were the days! </Sings> "

Mister, we could use a man like William McBrien again...

 

[Rainforest]

Wow, I cannot believe members are falling for that populist drivel. Chris Sellors is running for council in Ward 22 St. Paul's. The Yonge subway runs through the ward, as with the St. Clair Streetcar, and the potential ECLRT. Why would he be proposing subways to voters in a ward that is has good transit already,yet most of the resident hop in their BMV's to shop at the Forest Hill Loblaws?

Oh wait...Subways do not rob us of road capacity before people are able to leave their cars at home. He IS pandering to the voters in Ward 22! Build subways, and get transit out of the way of cars!!

The choice of subway vs LRT technology does not matter for Ward 22. Yonge subway is underground, and Eglinton line will be underground through that ward, be it subway or LRT. Nobody will ever propose to relocate the St Clair streetcar line underground.

Even for the planned surface LRT lines like Finch and Sheppard, the road space argument is greatly overblown. For the most part, they are going to transform 4-lane roads to 4 general-traffic lanes plus 2 LRT lanes. Only central left-turn lanes will be lost for general traffic, but not through lanes.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

"<Sings> Those were the days! </Sings> "

Mister, we could use a man like William McBrien again...

Hahaha

Mike Stivic: You got me, Ma, Gloria and Joey.
Archie Bunker: Aw geez what a bunch that is: A meathead, A dingbat, a woman's lib and a bald headed kid.