|
|
|
- Thread starter jallan71
- Start date
duper
Active Member
As I posted in the Subway maps thread (which I suppose should have been posted here instead):
http://sarahthomson.ca/blog/why-subways-are-better-way
http://sarahthomson.ca/blog/why-subways-are-better-way
syn
Senior Member
The only problem I have with her stance is that it seems anti-LRT. LRT is great in the right context. This is just more clever positioning on her part though.
I wonder if she could get sued for using Star Wars music:
[video=youtube;aGKmnyW3A0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGKmnyW3A0A&feature=channel[/video]
It's pretty cheesy!
Tewder
Senior Member
Who cares if her subway plan might need some tweaking here and there or if her preliminary numbers might be a little off! She's done more for subway advocacy in one day than any of the so-called experts or any of the more experienced and better known city politicians. What's more, her basic message actually makes a lot of sense when you blow away a lot of the smoke and mirror nonsense that passes for informed transit discourse in Toronto: The city's transit structure is broken and inadequate and will only get worse all the while politicians continue to pass off on their responsibility for it. Subways are expensive but they are needed and they make the most sense long term, which ultimately will be the most efficient and cost effective alternative now. It's only a shame somebody like her didn't step up 10 or so years ago! We'd be hailing them as a visionary now!!
MellFindlay
New Member
Actually, these kind of plans (massive subway extensions) have been discussed before, but this will definitely get more attention with the Road Tolls being added to the mix.
We're talking about adding a fee of $10 a day to drive a car along these routes, when people were "upset" at the $60 a year Personal Vehicle Tax. It's definitely brave, I just find it ironic that the funding for public transit would mostly come from the drivers on highways.
We're talking about adding a fee of $10 a day to drive a car along these routes, when people were "upset" at the $60 a year Personal Vehicle Tax. It's definitely brave, I just find it ironic that the funding for public transit would mostly come from the drivers on highways.
duper
Active Member
Tewder
Senior Member
True, but a lot of people are driving because of a lack of other effective options. Not many people actually enjoy sitting in traffic gridlock for hours upon hours.
EXgeMMy
Active Member
I don't think building X amount of subways within 10 years is impossible, it's just highly improbable in North America.
Madrid, Beijing, Shanghai they were able to build a ton of subways in a short period of time.
Granted labour in Chine is significantly less.
I like Hong Kong's model how the government eventually sold the MTR to the private sector. MTR would then build malls, housing along all the subway lines.
Their operators make a reasonable salary but nowhere near as high as what the TTC pays their employees which has allowed the MTR to expand infrastructure and be profitable.
Madrid, Beijing, Shanghai they were able to build a ton of subways in a short period of time.
Granted labour in Chine is significantly less.
I like Hong Kong's model how the government eventually sold the MTR to the private sector. MTR would then build malls, housing along all the subway lines.
Their operators make a reasonable salary but nowhere near as high as what the TTC pays their employees which has allowed the MTR to expand infrastructure and be profitable.
duper
Active Member
MellFindlay
New Member
I agree, that if the option for proper transit was available it would decrease the congestion on the highways.
My concern is who we are targetting to pay for this project, it seems a little isolated.
My concern is who we are targetting to pay for this project, it seems a little isolated.
TFC
Active Member
I'm happy that the topic of Subway expansion has been splashed on the front page of newspapers, and is getting wide spread media coverage. I hope that at least Smitherman adopts a similar stance on subway expansion.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
The plan isn't very rigid, it's just a "let's draw some lines on a map and spark debate and win votes" plan. 58km not including the Spadina extension (which she'd actually shorten), but including some added stops like Willowdale and Glen Echo. We'll see how far along Spadina is when, after October, she theoretically has the first chance to actually ask the province to sit down and chat about it, let alone how far along it'll be when a decision is made to cut or not cut. She'd extend Yonge but just to Steeles (having two extensions come to a crashing halt simply because of a municipal border opens a can of political and planning worms). Of that 58km, the only "new" project is the DRL since everything else is either proposed in some form or is proposed as a different technology (and with Eglinton needing a long tunnel, anyway, the difference is relatively minor there). The lines on this map are really quite reasonable, though...move a few things and quibble over the exact stations and maybe add a few short extensions, but it's in the ballpark of all of the subway projects we'd need, ever. It would dramatically change the way we get around the city - far more so than an equivalent capital expenditure of LRT lines. That's the plain, honest truth and it could win Sarah Thomson thousands of votes, but it's still way too early to tell if transit will be an actual vote-altering issue...and if she ties subway expansion to highway tolls too strongly, she'll end up losing thousands of votes.
To make the map balanced? To ensure the northwest "gets a subway"? If the northwest had intensely developed corridors that fit in well with the existing network and that had serious transit problems that a subway would fix, then maybe we'd see more proposals for such a line. You guys are forgetting that the Spadina line already serves the NW. What you're talking about is running a subway to a pocket of just two wards so that Rexdale gets a subway. Yeesh, indeed. There'd still be about 10 *more* kilometres of subway lines west of Yonge than east - the east would arguably still be underserved, especially if you're looking at a real map like the Ride Guide and not a stylized graphic, and if you consider that more people in Toronto actually live east of Yonge.
The missing link would be Sheppard to Downsview and running the DRL up Don Mills, not a subway to Rexdale. If the Finch LRT ran from Humber to Woodbine to the airport, that'd be vastly more useful than a subway line that wanders over to Rexdale for sheer optics.
To make the map balanced? To ensure the northwest "gets a subway"? If the northwest had intensely developed corridors that fit in well with the existing network and that had serious transit problems that a subway would fix, then maybe we'd see more proposals for such a line. You guys are forgetting that the Spadina line already serves the NW. What you're talking about is running a subway to a pocket of just two wards so that Rexdale gets a subway. Yeesh, indeed. There'd still be about 10 *more* kilometres of subway lines west of Yonge than east - the east would arguably still be underserved, especially if you're looking at a real map like the Ride Guide and not a stylized graphic, and if you consider that more people in Toronto actually live east of Yonge.
The missing link would be Sheppard to Downsview and running the DRL up Don Mills, not a subway to Rexdale. If the Finch LRT ran from Humber to Woodbine to the airport, that'd be vastly more useful than a subway line that wanders over to Rexdale for sheer optics.
brockm
Active Member
I'm not against user fees in practice. I think user fees are far fairer than broad-based taxes, but I think this issue is not as simple as Ms. Thomson makes it out to be.
It's one thing for London to start imposing congestion fees and tolls when they already have one of the most extensive fixed-rail systems in the world. We're starting from the perspective of the Great North American Frontier, which was mostly developed as we know it today, after the invention of the automobile.
The general obsession we have over trying to overlay a European model into the North American context when it comes to things like comprehensive regional transit system has been, is, and will probably continue to be a pipe dream for as long as my time horizon extends.
Here's a few negative effects that I foresee happening with Thomson's plan:
Construction of new subways lines on the scale she's proposing will take 7-10 years to come on stream. All the while, punitive measures will be taken against drivers to help pay for, while also incentivizing drivers to use transit.
As it turns out, I have no doubt that measures like this will reduce personal vehicle usage and increase transit usage. But like all things in economic analysis, we're often quick to lean too heavily on one datapoint.
We all seem to agree that transit is inadequate, and as such, given the amount of time it will take for the investment in transit to "pay off" as it were, commuters will be dinged with punitive taxes of diminishing returns as people seek ways to avoid them, and the biggest effect will be a significant decrease in quality of life for commuters in the short to medium term. Certainly short-term pain for long-term gain is a valuable principle in many cases, but I don't believe we've fully flushed out the issues at play here.
Commuters of average income (middle-class) may throw in the towel and switch to GO Transit. It goes without saying that by doing so, the city will not collect the $5.00 toll. And it also goes without saying that GO Transit itself is running near capacity -- as anyone who takes it at rush hour can attest. If this were to even cause GO Transit usage to increase by 15%, you could be looking at serious capacity problems.
Second, other people will simply accept the extra time cost and use arterial streets like the Queensway, Lakeshore Blvd, Dundas St, etc to get downtown. This will cause serious pressure on downtown streets, which will have the effect of slowing down streetcars, taxis, buses and other means that Torontonians use to get around the city. In this sense, Torontonians will -- as a negative externality -- bear some of the cost, even if they don't ever use the highways.
There's also a lot of people looking to move downtown these days, due to commute times. This could cause a spike in demand for Toronto real estate which will, push housing prices through the roof. Now for someone like me, this is probably a good thing. But for someone who's living hand to mouth and just trying to get by, this could actually have the unfortunate effect of pushing them out of the city.
This is actually an important point. Because while the North American inner cities tend to be where the slums are. In mainland Europe, as some people may have no doubt noticed, it's somewhat reversed. In cities like Paris and Berlin, the slums are in the suburbs. This is because the taxation and housing costs have pushed lower-class people out of the urban centres. And policies like this consistently have that effect.
One thing studying economics has taught me is: there is always a downside. Or at least, unexpected consequences to all these policies.
Disclosure: I live in downtown Toronto (near Bay St. and Lakeshore Blvd) and I don't own a car, and use transit exclusively. I certainly want to see transit improved in Toronto. But I don't want to see massive infrastructure projects just rammed through without careful consideration. Ms. Thomson's proposal seems like it was thought out on the back of a napkin, to be quite honest.
It's one thing for London to start imposing congestion fees and tolls when they already have one of the most extensive fixed-rail systems in the world. We're starting from the perspective of the Great North American Frontier, which was mostly developed as we know it today, after the invention of the automobile.
The general obsession we have over trying to overlay a European model into the North American context when it comes to things like comprehensive regional transit system has been, is, and will probably continue to be a pipe dream for as long as my time horizon extends.
Here's a few negative effects that I foresee happening with Thomson's plan:
Construction of new subways lines on the scale she's proposing will take 7-10 years to come on stream. All the while, punitive measures will be taken against drivers to help pay for, while also incentivizing drivers to use transit.
As it turns out, I have no doubt that measures like this will reduce personal vehicle usage and increase transit usage. But like all things in economic analysis, we're often quick to lean too heavily on one datapoint.
We all seem to agree that transit is inadequate, and as such, given the amount of time it will take for the investment in transit to "pay off" as it were, commuters will be dinged with punitive taxes of diminishing returns as people seek ways to avoid them, and the biggest effect will be a significant decrease in quality of life for commuters in the short to medium term. Certainly short-term pain for long-term gain is a valuable principle in many cases, but I don't believe we've fully flushed out the issues at play here.
Commuters of average income (middle-class) may throw in the towel and switch to GO Transit. It goes without saying that by doing so, the city will not collect the $5.00 toll. And it also goes without saying that GO Transit itself is running near capacity -- as anyone who takes it at rush hour can attest. If this were to even cause GO Transit usage to increase by 15%, you could be looking at serious capacity problems.
Second, other people will simply accept the extra time cost and use arterial streets like the Queensway, Lakeshore Blvd, Dundas St, etc to get downtown. This will cause serious pressure on downtown streets, which will have the effect of slowing down streetcars, taxis, buses and other means that Torontonians use to get around the city. In this sense, Torontonians will -- as a negative externality -- bear some of the cost, even if they don't ever use the highways.
There's also a lot of people looking to move downtown these days, due to commute times. This could cause a spike in demand for Toronto real estate which will, push housing prices through the roof. Now for someone like me, this is probably a good thing. But for someone who's living hand to mouth and just trying to get by, this could actually have the unfortunate effect of pushing them out of the city.
This is actually an important point. Because while the North American inner cities tend to be where the slums are. In mainland Europe, as some people may have no doubt noticed, it's somewhat reversed. In cities like Paris and Berlin, the slums are in the suburbs. This is because the taxation and housing costs have pushed lower-class people out of the urban centres. And policies like this consistently have that effect.
One thing studying economics has taught me is: there is always a downside. Or at least, unexpected consequences to all these policies.
Disclosure: I live in downtown Toronto (near Bay St. and Lakeshore Blvd) and I don't own a car, and use transit exclusively. I certainly want to see transit improved in Toronto. But I don't want to see massive infrastructure projects just rammed through without careful consideration. Ms. Thomson's proposal seems like it was thought out on the back of a napkin, to be quite honest.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
If you run DRL up to Don Mills and BD to STC - having a Sheppard subway that goes to STC is equally overkill.
AoD
AoD
js97
Senior Member
I think we can easily start a toll on certain sections of our highways.
If you price it right, let's say at 3 dollars, people will pay instead of taking a go around to save the toll. Strategically placed tolls entering toronto would require 905ers, and maybe some 416 ers to pay. You have your initial revenue right there. Also, if you bleed them slowly, say a quarter every 14 months, they won't notice as much of a difference. It's like the frog in a pot of boiling water experiment. Raise it up slowly and it will stay in there. Try to throw it in a pot of boiling water and it will jump out.
(Sinister, but pretty much what the current government is doing)
Also, you can Increase parking fees, but put away the extra revenue directly to a transportation capital fund. Otherwise, the piggies will just siphon it off slowly on other non-productive projects. Like 90k supervisors for parks and recs departments.
If you price it right, let's say at 3 dollars, people will pay instead of taking a go around to save the toll. Strategically placed tolls entering toronto would require 905ers, and maybe some 416 ers to pay. You have your initial revenue right there. Also, if you bleed them slowly, say a quarter every 14 months, they won't notice as much of a difference. It's like the frog in a pot of boiling water experiment. Raise it up slowly and it will stay in there. Try to throw it in a pot of boiling water and it will jump out.
(Sinister, but pretty much what the current government is doing)
Also, you can Increase parking fees, but put away the extra revenue directly to a transportation capital fund. Otherwise, the piggies will just siphon it off slowly on other non-productive projects. Like 90k supervisors for parks and recs departments.