News   Sep 06, 2024
Emerald City Skyline
 114     0 
News   Sep 05, 2024
Kitchener Rental Tower Proposed to Rise Along ION Corridor
 776     0 
News   Sep 05, 2024
Alba Rises Above Grade in Central Mississauga
 748     0 

Metrolinx: UK Madrid Tour Report

Darkstar416 said:
It sounds like Giambrone is freightened by the prospect that massive subway building still makes sense in many places in this day and age.
Click to expand...

What's truly frightening is that we should be considering what will work best in this city 20-30-40 years from now. A proper Eglinton subway won't seem like a frippery in 30 years, but a smallish LRT will seem ill-thought out.
 
I'm cool with Eglinton so long as it can reasonably be converted to subway down the line.

What I'm truly miffed about is Sheppard, Scarborough RT and no DRL (or anything to help east-west downtown travel).
 
^^Stonewalling is exactly what they are doing.

Too much of what we do in this city is not done with enough foresight. While I don't think that the 20 year plan to add more LRT lines is a bad one, it should most likely be implemented with expanded subway services.

As I came home tonight, I realized just how bad things are and how badly they will become in the future- we are at capacity if not over capacity and with probably no relief in near future. The system is stretched to the max and people are really frustrated about it. Every aspect of the system is taxed and rather than really look at broadbased and involved solutions, we are forced to come up with band-aid solutions.

This trip, like all the previous trips will do little to nothing with regards to improving our system. Everything is too costly and we do not have the political will to get things done.

p5
 
Steve Munro has said that he now wants to start a movement to ensure that Eglinton is not upgradeable to subway, which I mention because Giambrone appears to look to him for some guidance based on the his comments on Munro's blog. In a way, he has a point: I don't think Eglinton will ever really exceed the capacity of trains of light rail vehicles, operated at subway frequencies. If significant amounts of money can be saved by using smaller-diameter tunnels, we should go for it, especially if it means eliminating the remaining surface sections sooner. They're what I'm really worried about. The TTC has a spectacularly abysmal record of surface LRT/streetcar operations, even with major infrastructure investments, so I'm quite concerned that the billions spent on tunnels will become useless as the cars will bunch up on the surface section and arrive at the tunnel stations in packs every 30 minutes.

One of the unmentioned differences about the Madrid metro system is that they've used single-bore tunnels. Mightn't that be an approach to examine here, too? They should be particularly suitable to the smaller vehicles on Eglinton.

On the whole, tough we're just so damned allergic in this city to providing good service from the start in order to attract people to transit. Everything has to be way over capacity and thoroughly unpleasant to ride before we deem it worthy of improvement. We provide a lousy service and if, by some miracle, it still manages to attract hordes of riders who have no better choice, we reward it with an improvement small enough that the problems will soon return.

The no money complaints are truly bizarre. A couple years ago, we used to all go around swapping fantasies about "If I had $5 billion to spend on transit," dreaming up all the amazing things we would build. Now, the province commits to spending three times that amount, and people are still going on about how there's no money!
 
unimaginative2 said:
I agree, but remember that recent cost projections (since the anti-subway brigade came to power) have shown 50% or more increases in costs over Sheppard, even with less complicated interchange stations.

The difference between light rail and subway is that far fewer people will oppose subway projects. When people start to realize that Transit City will entail the lost of hundreds of lane-miles of road, thousands of trees, hundreds of front lawns, and hundreds of on-street parking spaces, I guarantee there will be rather spirited opposition. On the other hand, I've never met anyone in my life, other than transit "advocates," who opposes a bored subway.
Click to expand...

For subways, perhaps not NIMBY-style opposition, but certainly on the basis of cost.
 
Well I've never heard of an "advocate" opposing something on grounds of cost. Do health care advocates say "No! Don't build that new hospital! It's too expensive!"? They're advocates because they advocate spending more money.

They oppose it because they're either infatuated with the technology du jour, light rail, or they don't want anything built unless it's their exact pet project (O-Train).
 
The way I see it, an advocate needs to balance what's needed with what's possible. Ideally, an advocate wants every dollar of the budget spent on his cause. However, an advocate must realize that the budget and the political climate might not allow every dollar of the budget to be spent. In the end, an advocate has to push hard for every scape of extra dollar he can get.

Having said that, I think an advocate can go overboard and become too militant. I'm not going to mention any names, but there is one advocate who called referred to me as "usual corporate/political cheerleaders, not people who will take a hard look at whatever might be proposed." Not that I hold a grudge or anything....
 
I have a lot of experience in government, and I'm telling you that's exactly what an advocate should not do. An advocate should be going on about how wonderful and necessary absolutely every project is, and leave it up to the people controlling the purse strings to decide what is actually affordable. They're never going to give everything you ask for (Move Ontario 2020 aside) so it's crazy to start telling them "Oh, well don't do this, it's too expensive." They'll get the idea that transit projects are too expensive and cut them further. In all the time I've spend around government, I've never encountered a sector where advocates behave the way transit advocates do.

Look at successful lobbies. Has the police lobby ever said "Don't buy us that helicopter. It'd be useful but money's short. And that cruiser is really a bit fancier than we need"?
 
unimaginative2 said:
Well I've never heard of an "advocate" opposing something on grounds of cost. Do health care advocates say "No! Don't build that new hospital! It's too expensive!"? They're advocates because they advocate spending more money.

They oppose it because they're either infatuated with the technology du jour, light rail, or they don't want anything built unless it's their exact pet project (O-Train).
Click to expand...

No, we were talking about how non-transit advocates oppose subways. No one would oppose them out of NIMBYism, but people oppose subways out of cost--like how Eglinton was canned by Harris.
 
We were talking about environmental assessments and community consultations. I said that subways, unlike LRTs, would not get held up in these processes by community opposition.
 
unimaginative2 said:
We were talking about environmental assessments and community consultations. I said that subways, unlike LRTs, would not get held up in these processes by community opposition.
Click to expand...

Well, there *was* that one guy at the RT replacement meeting who opposed a subway extension on the grounds of electromagnetic radiation...but maybe he doesn't count.
 
I have no problem with LRT as a technology...it's the insane route planning that went into Transit City that I have a problem with. It's astounding that with all the recent press coverage of the disastrous state of the Queen line more people aren't asking about why on earth that city is so determined to ignore transit south of Bloor.
 
As a transit advocate, I look at both sides as at the end of the day, someone has to pay for and that you and me. We only have X $$ to spend and we have took closely how we spend it. Otherwise we are sitting home with nothing other than a roof over our head at best.

Why should 50,000 riders get a subway while 100,000 can only get buses?

Why should 180,000 streetcar riders be force have poor service as there is no equipment to be put on the road to meet there needs, yet 50,000 riders have a subway to ride?

Why should GO be operating 10 car trains for off peak time when you only need a 4-5 car train in the first place? Is GO going to run 10 car trains when service becomes 30 minutes?

Since GO only has one type of equipment and all kinds of reason it cannot breakdown trains, huge amount of wear and tear takes place. Total waste of resources and $$.

I can support an LRT to York, but not a subway. Taking it up to hwy 7, some ways I do support a subway as hwy 7 location will become a nice parking lot for the 400 drivers. Being there, the lot will help to take some of the traffic off the roads, but within 5 years we will be back to the same problem with new drivers hitting the road yearly to replace them.

I can support the SRT upgraded to a subway if it goes to Sheppard and Markham Rd. I can support an LRT in place of the SRT as it can branch out to other parts of the 416 and 905.

I can support upgrading to a Mark II as long it goes into the 905 as well to the city core. Going to where it plan on going, I don't support it.

There is a saw off as to getting ppl to live in higher density that can support the operation cost vs low density that cannot. Low density relies on other low density area, but more high density to pay the short fall of operation cost to keep their line running. Why should low density get great service while the high density doesn't?

At the same time, I look at what is needed to get ppl to use transit or get the area redeveloped. Most ppl prefer to ride steel wheels than rubber when it come to transit. I can deal with both depending on the route and length, but I like steel wheels.

BRT have their place and it for areas that will never over the next 25 years that will not meet the need of an LRT in the first place unless it is within the LRT network. They can be used to build up ridership to the point there is a need to move to LRT.

Yonge and BD did have streetcars before they became a subway as they built the ridership up to the point that was the next step. Cannot say that for the Spadina or Sheppard. There has been no next step up since the 60's

The SRT happen because of a good salesmanships when only a streetcar was needed in the first place. Look at what we got for that salesmanships and what are we heading for.

Spadina got build as a saw off for canceling of the expressway.

PPL oppose transit for all kinds of reason regardless what it is. Seen it from buses to GO Rail.
 
unimaginative2 said:
I have a lot of experience in government, and I'm telling you that's exactly what an advocate should not do. An advocate should be going on about how wonderful and necessary absolutely every project is, and leave it up to the people controlling the purse strings to decide what is actually affordable. They're never going to give everything you ask for (Move Ontario 2020 aside) so it's crazy to start telling them "Oh, well don't do this, it's too expensive." They'll get the idea that transit projects are too expensive and cut them further. In all the time I've spend around government, I've never encountered a sector where advocates behave the way transit advocates do.

Look at successful lobbies. Has the police lobby ever said "Don't buy us that helicopter. It'd be useful but money's short. And that cruiser is really a bit fancier than we need"?
Click to expand...

Based on your statement, then what TTC is plan on doing for the WesternWaterfront-Union is a great thing??

The extra $350 million to build this plan that will not server the area is better than a plan that will cost less and service a lager area the better way?

I know of a few.

As for the police, there is someone to speak on their be haft while transit has the odd voice here or there. With the 501 issue, this may change.

Then TTC does buy high price items when a mid range price would do fine. Add GO to that list.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top