News   Jul 30, 2024
Ambitious Residential Proposal Retains Car Dealership at Jane and St Clair
 1K     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
8 Wellesley's Distinctive Slope Emerges as Construction Reaches Crown
 1.8K     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
News Roundup for July 30, 2024
 672     0 

saveoursubways (SOS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Post #1208 right beneath my Youtube dissertations on Page 81, the one where Matt condescendingly and ignorantly likens my "speech" on the benefits of Bus Rapid Transit to grandstanding made by the POTUS in the movie Independence Day. I don't really care whether he mocks me, but to slander a whole technology is irreprehensible just because some North Americans are either too proud to consider buses a higher mode of transport or are too cheap to invest in ways to make them run more efficiently (lets face it, NA attempts to make busways are pishpoor at best outside of a few noted exceptions like Ottawa) or are too ignorant to the realities of the times that the city/province is in a state of bankruptcy yet they feel they are entitled to whatever measly pork the feds will begrudingly throw at our way when the money could be put towards better public use.

If all Transit City intends to do is dump even greater volumes of commuter traffic upon the subway system, then at least make the lines fully crosstown (Finch), directly connect up major trip-generators (Sheppard), extend the level of grade-separation (Eglinton) and eliminate a transfer when there's high enough forecasted rideship growth for through-service operation (SRT to B-D expansion). The answer for problems A and partly B is more suited to BRT busway due to buses greater mobility, manuverability and cheaper ROW construction per mileage. Grade-separated LRT ROWs can cost in the same or even more expensive levels as metro subways and the possibility to interline trips between downtown Toronto and the ACC/Pearson via Eglinton would be lost if the modes are incompatible; so naturally problems B in part, C and D are more suited to metro subways. Only Jane and Don Mills extending northwards from the end of the DRL theoretically could work as LRT, but those are not high prioriy lines as yet. I don't know how far $12 billion can stretch with the TTC at the helm of designing and building the ROWs, but if even 3 subway expansion projects and one complete crosstown busway were completed out of that, then we can really say that the city is heading in the right direction.
 
Fresh Start said:
Post #1208 right beneath my Youtube dissertations on Page 81, the one where Matt condescendingly and ignorantly likens my "speech" on the benefits of Bus Rapid Transit to grandstanding made by the POTUS in the movie Independence Day. I don't really care whether he mocks me, but to slander a whole technology is irreprehensible just because some North Americans are either too proud to consider buses a higher mode of transport or are too cheap to invest in ways to make them run more efficiently (lets face it, NA attempts to make busways are pishpoor at best outside of a few noted exceptions like Ottawa) or are too ignorant to the realities of the times that the city/province is in a state of bankruptcy yet they feel they are entitled to whatever measly pork the feds will begrudingly throw at our way when the money could be put towards better public use.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear: I am only making fun of your ability to write dozens of purple-tinged paragraphs about BRT. I've got nothing against buses or BRT per se.

But here's the thing, and I said this above: You are not going to be able to sell buses politically. Rail bias is a real thing. People vote for trains and not buses. There are some quantifiable arguments that say the old Spadina bus was better than the current streetcar ROW but you'd get riders crying bloody murder if you even hinted at tearing up the tracks and running articulated buses in the ROW. It would not fly.

There's a gigantic political element to transit construction. It is not all about headways, line speed, capacity and transferless riders. This what I think you in particular and SOS generally keep failing to understand. Transit is politics. Look at the ICTS in Scarborough, the Sheppard Subway, the Spadina extension into Vaughan, etc. These exist like they do because people wanted to win elections and make development and manufacturing companies happy.

Now, you can wage war against this kind of politically-motivated transit construction if you want, but be clear about what you're doing. And don't think you'll get anywhere just because you get the 'right guy' in the mayor's chair. You're talking major sea change here.
 
GM,

We aren't selling a bus plan. We are selling a rail plan. Just one that's a bit different from TC.

As for the politics...well, that's up to the voters. Like I said earlier, they need to understand the opportunity cost of Transit City. But it's not as unsellable as you'd think. In most cases, a ward that might lose a TC line (say on Finch) would gain a subway line on another boundary (Sheppard). The only real loser in this plan would be Raymond Cho. And coming from his ward, I'll tell ya that the guy doesn't really care what the public thinks because he gets elected every year anyway.

Anyway, I really don't think we should be compromising by dumbing down the plan because of politics. That would be selling out on our principles. We present the ideal. I am sure, that if it were to get implemented, that in due course it would get bastardized for political reasons. That's to be expected. But it does not give SOS an excuse to set the bar low.
 
Keithz, if I can give your group one recommendation it's that you have to streamline your communication ASAP. I'm getting conflicting messages from different SOS members: BRT is better than LRT; BRT is worse than LRT; BRT is not an issue; BRT is an issue because it's how we plan to transport people to the enlarged subway system, etc. I know this thread is a testing ground for ideas, but you have to be careful not to provoke LRT fans with inconsistencies. I suggest that you have a closed-door session somewhere on the forum where you agree on what to say and what not to say.
 
Hipster Duck said:
Keithz, if I can give your group one recommendation it's that you have to streamline your communication ASAP. I'm getting conflicting messages from different SOS members: BRT is better than LRT; BRT is worse than LRT; BRT is not an issue; BRT is an issue because it's how we plan to transport people to the enlarged subway system, etc. I know this thread is a testing ground for ideas, but you have to be careful not to provoke LRT fans with inconsistencies. I suggest that you have a closed-door session somewhere on the forum where you agree on what to say and what not to say.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. That said. We're all indviduals, with our own ideas and our own opinions. Oddly enough, I don't think a lot of talk in this thread has been "on behalf of SOS". Once we get the plan out (it's done, just being edited and prettied up with graphics and such), it'll take centre-stage to our opinions.
 
The new mayoral candidate, Sarah Thompson, who announced she will run sounds far more transit friendly than Rocco Rossi and wants to look at changing Transit City lines to subways. Sounds like an SOS candidate.
 
Justin10000 said:
And she wants the Private sector to pay for the new lines.

*PASS*
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Canada Line a PPP? There a plenty of examples of good PPPs, GTAers just happen to remember the one really bad one (the 407). I'm not opposed to PPPs at all, so long as they're done properly. Bringing private sector dollars into it generally ensures that the projects are not plagued with over-designs and cost overruns.
 
The Canada Line is a poor example of a PPP. The Canada Line PPP was created purely from ideological belief that anything private is good, and will save taxpayers. Well, the taxpayers are now expected to subsidize the Canada Line at the tune of 14-25 million until 2025. AND the Canada Line is at near capacity. You think InTransitBC is going to buy new trains? Hell, no. Will bite into their profits.
I doubt you will be able any "good" PPP's where the costs have been lower, than if it was done with public dollars. Government are accountable to us.
 
Non of the other mayoral candidates were really looking any good (I was leaning towards Smitherman, but he seemed to side with Miller on lots of issues I wasn't fond of), but I just checked out Sarah Thomson's website and all the media I could find on her, and so far I agree with her platform 100%. If she sticks with her guns and gives me a convincing plan about expanding subways and opening up city services to the private sector, then she has my vote.

My only concern is her lack of political experience. However seeing what our previous mayors and some councilors did with having political experience, it really doesn't seem like a huge factor.
 
Just wondering, when you talk about Thomson opening the city up to the private sector, what exactly does that mean? I saw an article about her in the star, and as soon as I saw reference to that, I was turned off by the notion.

But does that instead mean doing things like outsourcing TTC janitorial service, garbage collection, etc? If so, combined with more subways, she may be my dream candidate. But if she means wanting to make more 407s out of water, public transit, etc. Then count me out.
 
Dont get me wrong, it's still early in the mayoral race, so I'm going to see how Thomson and the other candidates expand on their ideas. I'm not going to blindly vote on someone, however I do like her platform the best so far.

She has the idea of "The Best Service and Pricing Option" to allow private companies compete with the unions for services in Toronto. This process will obviously have to be explained more and the details thought out, but if we speculate on possibilities as they relate to Subways (seeing as this is an SOS thread)...

Imagine the full Eglinton and DRL subways being built as PPP (despite what others say, I think the Canada Line has been successful example of this). They're run by a contractor from day 1. If the TTC union or the contractors go on strike we only lose half the system, no great, but not crippling the city. If we contract out different bus and streetcar divisions, as is done in many other cities (like York region), then we're able spread the strike risk, and with competitive contracts, probably get much better deals and save money on the workforce and the system (which the contractors will have more of an incentive to keep the costs down).

When Viva went on strike in 2008, YRT still had it's bus network, and Veolia was responsible for dealing with their workforce. I think this makes the relationship between unions, contractors and the city a little more fair, and the powers more balanced.

Just my 2 cents though
 
^^ That sounds like a pretty reasonable deal. Things like contracting out Garbage and TTC workers would be great.

Though I have to admit, I'm skeptical about PPPs, probably because I don't think I fully understand them. It's not that I think that the 407 will happen again (though with the TTC here, you can never be too sure,) but I don't quite understand what they mean. If I were to have my say, the workers would all be contracted out to private companies, so that each could make the best of their contract; the way capitalism should be working. That'll mean well educated workers working for a reasonable price. On top of that, construction would be tended out to private companies. Real transit engineers would be contracted to decide how the line should be built; building method, station/stop placement, and station size. If those two (three) combined are essentially a PPP, I'd be fine with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top