Railization
Active Member
I said now, as in the estimate now. Pull the cucumber out.
Quit backpedaling, learn to articulate, and cut the immaturity.
|
|
|
I said now, as in the estimate now. Pull the cucumber out.
I provided at least two maps that show this. If you actually clicked the links. Those links are from the City's website no less.You haven't debunked anything. You have yet to show that future development along Queen will be greater than what's happening along our Waterfront. Please show us where in the official plan the rest of Queen is supposed to become condo heaven.
I think you should look at the more detailed plans for the areas instead of just the OP only. You get more information. Information that you clearly are missing or you wouldn't be taking these stands. Furthermore, both the OP and the more detailed CIPs are going for a development pattern that is better supported by LRT than subway anyway. Putting a subway down the waterfront would see nodal instead of continuous levels of development. The waterfront will undoubtedly be most vibrant with a continuous pattern rather than nodal.If the city changes it's designation of Queen St neighbourhoods as 'stable' I'll accept that we should move the line north. Till then, from what that official plan says, the city is developing southward in my books.
This is a lie, plain and simple. You previously stated that a feeder bus system for the Portlands could be used instead of LRT so long as the area has a subway stop. Which is ridiculous and I explained the various reasons why.And I never said that LRT was supposedly inferior. I said that development along the Portlands warranted a nearby subway station...presumably one to which the Portlands LRT would run. I don't think building one precludes the other or that it's an issue of sufficient demand for the line....it's a question of if there is demand for that subway stop, imho.
Where did I call people misguided? Quit playing victim.Notice I haven't called them misguided like you have the rest of us....
Now you're gasping at straws. Why don't we add a King St. alignment since it's just as impractical to realistically construct as Queen is!?Sadly on this poll, only three of the choices are represented (Queen, Richmond/Adelaide, Front/Wellington/Rail). Should we have grouped them accordingly we would have gotten a much more accurate result. As you can see, at this point 55% of folks prefer a Front/Wellington/rail corridor alignment.
So why are Queen station and King station at comparable levels of ridership?And that's likely because the majority of glass palace workers coming in from Scarbarough will be working south of King...
King is the busiest route... I previously acknowledged that, likely more than once. This is now you trying to misconstrue the argument and my position. The reason why I insist that the Richmond/Adelaide model is best is because it will:and the vote recognizes that. Queen street boosters are not supporting this as a relief line project for Yonge/Bloor (where those commuters go through now) they are attempting to graft a relief line for the Queen streetcar on to the DRL. And that still does not make sense as Queen is not the busiest route through the core. That's King I believe.
See, you make comments like this, and it SCREAMS that you either aren't paying attention to the thread, or that you have no understanding of networks whatsoever. That quote states that you don't understand how downtown travel patterns work.Indeed. All the more the reason for the DRL to connect to Union.
Those folks would be riding north irrespective of where the DRL lies. But if it's at Union you are giving them the choice to connect to one more line. Either way, they are 'moving against traffic' so they aren't as big a concern.
Personally I see no reason to break YUS in half. By all means, we should build the DRL from Pape to Dundas west via Union, but the TTC isn't looking at bisecting YUS as far as I know, and I don't know any good reason to do so.
Bingo ... double decker - though there should be room for 4 tracks under a 30-metre wide street, but perhaps not platforms as well, but you wouldn't need platforms for both tracks, except at a couple of locations, so the express tracks could simply pass underneath most stations, with no platforms ...
The City has plenty of taxing powers; they were given a lot of power in the new City of Toronto Act - however they have chosen not to use most of their new powers, restricting the new taxes to house transfers and cars (which in retrospect, were most likely to have been severely reduced during a recession ...)
I think we should just build platforms big enough to allow for future car additions (maybe enough for seven cars, instead of the current six?). That's probably the cheapest way to "make room."
That's a bit extreme, I live in the city. Taxes don't seem to be that bad; they have taxes in other cities too ... sure it's painful, but it not like unique here or anything.WTF??? The city is raping its citizens, homeowners, rate-payers, tenants, TTC users, etc etc. If you seriously dont know how bad it is, then you're either loaded or you dont live in this city.
I provided at least two maps that show this. If you actually clicked the links. Those links are from the City's website no less.
I think you should look at the more detailed plans for the areas instead of just the OP only....
Putting a subway down the waterfront would see nodal instead of continuous levels of development. The waterfront will undoubtedly be most vibrant with a continuous pattern rather than nodal.
This is a lie, plain and simple. You previously stated that a feeder bus system for the Portlands could be used instead of LRT so long as the area has a subway stop. Which is ridiculous and I explained the various reasons why.
Now you're gasping at straws. Why don't we add a King St. alignment since it's just as impractical to realistically construct as Queen is!?
So why are Queen station and King station at comparable levels of ridership?
See, you make comments like this, and it SCREAMS that you either aren't paying attention to the thread, or that you have no understanding of networks whatsoever. That quote states that you don't understand how downtown travel patterns work.
You missed the point, and don't understand downtown travel patterns, nor the challenges Union station is up against 20 years from now.
I think you need to tone down your superiority complex and think about why your comments are out-of-touch.
That's a bit extreme, I live in the city. Taxes don't seem to be that bad; they have taxes in other cities too ... sure it's painful, but it not like unique here or anything.
That's exactly what I do! And MPAC assessment increases don't increase your taxes - unless you increased more than the average. If your assessment went up 20% from the last assessment, and the average went up 20%, then your taxes go up 0% ... well 4% now I guess. BTW, I took a close look at my assessment, and did some measuring ... there is errors, my finished basement area is half of what they have on record, and my lot area is about 70% of what is shown ... so I'm appealing. (tax is fine, but damned if I'm going to pay MORE than my share! ).Its VERY painful. Try holding down a mortgage on one icome and see your property taxes go up by 4% on top of a bloated assesment that MPAC put out. Then see your water rate go up 9%.
Where people complain that their taxes are higher than Toronto's ...Then there is also the land transfer tax and the vehicle transfer tax. These all just pertain solely to Toronto, so in reality many honest hard working people will be forced out into the burbs, thus creating more urban sprawl.
I think we are fractions of a percentage higher than most (but not all) of the suburbs this year, and I think we have been lower than most of the suburbs the last 2 years. I'm having a hard time seeing the issue here ... people have been complaining about property taxes in every city on the planet since Roman times. Can we try being a bit original here?The annual budget is going up higher then inflation each and every year, and a higher rate then the surrounding suburbs.
Its VERY painful. Try holding down a mortgage on one icome and see your property taxes go up by 4% on top of a bloated assesment that MPAC put out. Then see your water rate go up 9%. Then there is also the land transfer tax and the vehicle transfer tax. These all just pertain solely to Toronto, so in reality many honest hard working people will be forced out into the burbs, thus creating more urban sprawl.
The annual budget is going up higher then inflation each and every year, and a higher rate then the surrounding suburbs.
Agreed. But till our higher levels of government pony up, we are going to have to raise the revenue on our own to build things like the DRL.
And taxes are still not as bad as they appear. Toronto's mill rates are significantly lower than its neighbours. I agree that the other taxes can seem egregious but they are purposeful and I am willing to bet that given the chance the 905 would put them in too. Vehicle taxes discourage driving. Garbage taxes encourage recycling. For too long we have subsidized poor behaviour, with these taxes the city has finally stopped doing that. What's wrong with that?
The only tax I disagreed with was the land transfer tax. I'd rather have seen the city jack up developer fees to at least par with the 905 if not higher.
I dont even own a car and I am against the car transfer tax. Everyone of those taxes make us less competitive then our 905 suburbs. In a decision of where to live, someone will move to where its more conveniant and cheaper for them. Thats why Im all for zoned fares for the TTC. The chespest fare could potentially be less then our current fare, thus benefiting many Torontonians. The longer riders would pay a higher fare and that would better serve the needs of the TTC operating budget and the city's.