TransitBart
Senior Member
True.Many streets would have had to have their sidewalks widened at the expense of car space a long time ago if it wasn't for PATH.
True.Many streets would have had to have their sidewalks widened at the expense of car space a long time ago if it wasn't for PATH.
What's wrong with tunnelling under the river? Lots of tunnels go under rivers around the world. And how much more would an extra thousand feet or so of tunnel cost over a bridge?
I agree. Mr Ford does not care as long as it’s not running down the middle of the street.I don't think Ford could care less about the technology or whether it's LRT or not but rather if it interferes with road traffic. The Manila Metro actually uses LRT trains but is considered a Metro as it is completely grade separated. It's 31km primary line carries 500,000 passengers a day with only 100 meter trains running every 3 minutes. an automated system with 120 meter standard TTC station lengths could carry twice that.
I agree. Mr Ford does not care as long as it’s not running down the middle of the street.
Then why did he argue about the LRT section of that proposed grade-separated line interfering with traffic?Ford initially wanted crosstown all the way to STC underground then above ground in Scarbrough. He just wants transit and traffic separated.
By above ground, I assume you mean elevated - I don't think Ford ever supported that - although I don't think he opposed it either.Ford initially wanted crosstown all the way to STC underground then above ground in Scarbrough. He just wants transit and traffic separated.
Agree that Ford is not the sharpest knife in the drawer - which makes it even more embarrassing that he came up with the best transit plan in the past decade.Perhaps it's not that he want's transit and traffic separated - but that he'd dumber than dumb..
I can think of many dumber-than-dumb transit plans he came up with. But nothing close to good, let alone best! I think you are making something up here.Agree that Ford is not the sharpest knife in the drawer - which makes it even more embarrassing that he came up with the best transit plan in the past decade.
By above ground, I assume you mean elevated - I don't think Ford ever supported that - although I don't think he opposed it either.
Agree that Ford is not the sharpest knife in the drawer - which makes it even more embarrassing that he came up with the best transit plan in the past decade.
I imagine the studies are at least somewhat there - Metrolinx is likely mostly behind this to be honest. Ford's level of direction was likely "make it cheaper and all subways" and Metrolinx figured out the rest.I don't consider drawing a line on a map to be a transit plan. Show me the technology, show me the studies, show me the planning that is going in to this. I don't want to be anti Ford just for the sake of it but if he expects to have the line open by 2029 he better have quite a bit of the planning done already, or at least begun.
Than Ford should be transparent with the studies. After all he pledged to be more transparent than the previous Liberal government.I imagine the studies are at least somewhat there - Metrolinx is likely mostly behind this to be honest. Ford's level of direction was likely "make it cheaper and all subways" and Metrolinx figured out the rest.
EGLINTON CROSSTOWN RAPID TRANSIT BENEFITS CASEI don't consider drawing a line on a map to be a transit plan. Show me the technology, show me the studies, show me the planning that is going in to this. I don't want to be anti Ford just for the sake of it but if he expects to have the line open by 2029 he better have quite a bit of the planning done already, or at least begun.
TABLE 4.7 BENEFIT COST RATIOS WITH RELIABILITY BENEFITS INCLUDED
Option 1 : 1.04:1 [combined Eglinton-Scarborough]
Option 2 : 0.91:1 [combined Eglinton-Scarborough; longer trains and lower frequency]
Option 3 : 0.80:1 [Transit City LRT]
Option 4 : 0.68:1 [Eglinton-Scarborough as a subway]
PATH is like a "relief line" for the streets above it in terms of pedestrian capacity. Without it, the streets of the Financial District couldn't handle the volume of pedestrians at peak times in many spots where there are older buildings built right up to the sidewalk.
Many streets would have had to have their sidewalks widened at the expense of car space a long time ago if it wasn't for PATH.
I don't consider drawing a line on a map to be a transit plan. Show me the technology, show me the studies, show me the planning that is going in to this. I don't want to be anti Ford just for the sake of it but if he expects to have the line open by 2029 he better have quite a bit of the planning done already, or at least begun.
I imagine the studies are at least somewhat there - Metrolinx is likely mostly behind this to be honest. Ford's level of direction was likely "make it cheaper and all subways" and Metrolinx figured out the rest.
Logic would indicate that something, or a couple of things are 'on the table' at Metrolinx, and that's what Ford and Yurek saw...but as time goes on (it's been over a month since the announcement) not one scintilla of engineering detail has emerged. Verster's (gist) "bridge instead of tunnel to traverse the Don at Harbour East" besides, which is a ridiculous suggestion for a number of reasons, but Verster is grabbing at vapour, just as the others are.Then Ford should be transparent with the studies. After all he pledged to be more transparent than the previous Liberal government.