News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

Even if the money was there we’d have to wait till the old rolling stock is retired and that’s at least 15 years from now

When we replace the old trains with trains we can't buy due to lack of funding?


Are you sensing a trend here?
 
When we replace the old trains with trains we can't buy due to lack of funding?


Are you sensing a trend here?
I know the RFP was cancelled, but if you want PSD's remember you'd have to throw away the current rolling stock which has tons of life left.
Even if there wasn't as much of a funding issue you'd still have to make some hard choices.
 
ATC on Line 2. It's not being done because there is no money.
IIRC, ATC on Line 2 is fully funded and currently underway. Albeit, very slowly. That still doesn't discount the need for new rolling stock.

I know the RFP was cancelled, but if you want PSD's remember you'd have to throw away the current rolling stock which has tons of life left.
Even if there wasn't as much of a funding issue you'd still have to make some hard choices.
The current rolling stock does not have "tons" of life left. At most you can call in 25% of the expected lifespan.
 
IIRC, ATC on Line 2 is fully funded and currently underway. Albeit, very slowly. That still doesn't discount the need for new rolling stock.


The current rolling stock does not have "tons" of life left. At most you can call in 25% of the expected lifespan.
What are you basing the 25% on? The H4's lasted for 38 years and part of why they were retired was a lack of AC, and analog parts being hard to acquire.
I could see the T1's lasting longer. Yes we need new trains, especially with the fact that the line is being extended and the TR's can't go to line 2.
 
IIRC, ATC on Line 2 is fully funded and currently underway. Albeit, very slowly. That still doesn't discount the need for new rolling stock.


The current rolling stock does not have "tons" of life left. At most you can call in 25% of the expected lifespan.
I think this thread is fast drifting off course.....
 
Anything that removes the human element from traffic enforcement is a plus in my book - especially since TPS appears to have largely checked out on that front.
As the video notes, even when they are there it's not effective. I've actually seen cars going through right past officers who were writing tickets to someone they had already pulled over.
What actually is the cost on these tickets?

EDIT: I should note there still seems to be a percentage of violators who simply cannot decipher what are the rules which I would put on sign overload. There's way too many signs with too much pointless junk, like at Jarvis.
Even the note about "bicycles excepted" has me wondering if the City does a legalisation for e-scooters I fully expect them to go out and add that to all these rule signs.
 
Last edited:

Councilor Moise floating the idea of camera enforcement of King St corridor.

The obvious answer is to just close King St to all cars from Bathurst to Berkeley. Pedestrians only with a separated streetcar ROW down the middle. There are plenty of alternative routes for cars nearby. Would be good for tourism and night life as well as transit reliability. It's a no-brainer! Just need someone with the will to push it through.
 
The obvious answer is to just close King St to all cars from Bathurst to Berkeley. Pedestrians only with a separated streetcar ROW down the middle. There are plenty of alternative routes for cars nearby. Would be good for tourism and night life as well as transit reliability. It's a no-brainer! Just need someone with the will to push it through.
I guess those who park underground for work or shop on King will no longer able to do it anymore under your plan?

The Tower owners will be crying the blues with the lost revenues from those parking spot and force tenants to pay a higher cost to rent to cover the cost to maintain those empty spots.

Major tenant's will be threating to move somewhere else to where parking is allow. The big wigs need to be pickup and drop off as they will not be using transit nor having to walk a few blocks to their office.
 
I guess those who park underground for work or shop on King will no longer able to do it anymore under your plan?

The Tower owners will be crying the blues with the lost revenues from those parking spot and force tenants to pay a higher cost to rent to cover the cost to maintain those empty spots.

Major tenant's will be threating to move somewhere else to where parking is allow. The big wigs need to be pickup and drop off as they will not be using transit nor having to walk a few blocks to their office.
If one has a destination to a condo garage on King Street, they'll still have access. Not for through automobile, SUV, or private pickup truck traffic. If you work or shop, you can use public transit, cycle, or (oh the horrors) walk.
 
If one has a destination to a condo garage on King Street, they'll still have access. Not for through automobile, SUV, or private pickup truck traffic. If you work or shop, you can use public transit, cycle, or (oh the horrors) walk.
How do you enforce it so residents can go but nobody else?
 

Back
Top