denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
If you use enough trips in a month that a Metropass is cheaper than using tokens (or Presto), it's a bargain.
Not sure how saving money is a rip-off.
I use presto. 2.70 per day. Fare is 3.00+ now.
|
|
|
If you use enough trips in a month that a Metropass is cheaper than using tokens (or Presto), it's a bargain.
Not sure how saving money is a rip-off.
I'm still paying $115.50 per month with annual TTC metropass subscription (it will rise to $117.75 in June for me). After the 15% federal tax credit that's $98.18 a month (increasing to $100.09). I averaged about 62 TTC trips a month with the pass last year - that's $1.86 a trip (increasing to $1.90).I use presto. 2.70 per day. Fare is 3.00+ now.
As mentioned before, Toronto is on track to have a rapid transit system of just under 200 km within the next 10-15 years.
I would lose all faith in Toronto if that was built. It's an embarrassment.
If you use enough trips in a month that a Metropass is cheaper than using tokens (or Presto), it's a bargain.
Not sure how saving money is a rip-off.
It is a rip-off if you look at London's Oyster card, which allows to you pay bulk purchase price per trip subject to a monthly cap (beyond which no more charges).
It gives one the flexibility of not having to buy a monthly pass but enjoying the benefit of it in case you end up making a lot more trips than you expect. That's what I call a nicely designed system FOR its customers, not to reap as much profit as possible.
We already have something somewhat like that. It's called the Gardiner Expressway.
Oyster doesn't have monthly capping as far as I know. You have to pre-purchase a 7-day or monthly travelcard to put on your Oyster card. At least you did last time I purchased a travelcard.It is a rip-off if you look at London's Oyster card, which allows to you pay bulk purchase price per trip subject to a monthly cap (beyond which no more charges).
I don't see the difference of prepurchasing a TTC Metropass compared to prepurchasing a TFL travelcard on Oyster.It gives one the flexibility of not having to buy a monthly pass but enjoying the benefit of it in case you end up making a lot more trips than you expect. That's what I call a nicely designed system FOR its customers, not to reap as much profit as possible.
A lot of you say you wouldn't want Elevated lines above streets. And I understand that, looking at Chicago and NYC.. But there must be a aesthetically pleasing way to do elevated transit without blocking out the sunlight to the street below all day for the entire route.
We're in the process of making that decision on Eglinton East, whether we should do it at grade or elevated, and it seems like the majority seem to want it elevated. So looking at Eglinton East through North York and Scarborough, how would you do it? Would you run it down the middle of the street? Narrow the street to four lanes in each direction and run the guideway to the north or south?
Toronto should look at ways to create transit comfortably and efficiently... Because our stations are comfortable, yes. But some of them are overbuilt and overcomplicated (ie. Wilson).
Seriously, NO ONE who is arguing for elevated transit wants anything more than the LRT out of the way of their car. Elevated anything blocks views and creates dead space underneath (e.g. Gardiner, flyovers, Chicago El, Paris elevated lines, etc.). The subway advocates have reluctantly realized the subway is too expensive and yet transit is going to be built, and are flailing. Elevated is a fallback and a terrible idea.
Seriously, NO ONE who is arguing for elevated transit wants anything more than the LRT out of the way of their car. Elevated anything blocks views and creates dead space underneath (e.g. Gardiner, flyovers, Chicago El, Paris elevated lines, etc.). The subway advocates have reluctantly realized the subway is too expensive and yet transit is going to be built, and are flailing. Elevated is a fallback and a terrible idea.
Elevated lines usually work when you build the city around them. Putting them on a built-out area without causing at least some damage is very difficult, however.
Vancouver's is pretty good because it goes underground downtown and doesn't loom over arterials elsewhere.
Cities grow over time and, to some extent, grow to incorporate infrastructure. Scarborough was mostly built when the SRT went in, as was Vancouver with its network.
There are limits obviously, which is why nobody is proposing building 8 late elevated highways everywhere. As far as infrastructure goes though, modern transit guideways are pretty easy to integrate into urban designs.
In cases like Eglinton East, street width from storefront to storefront typically exceeds 200ft, assuming a storefront even exists as opposed to a parking lot. A guideway would typically be just over 1/10th of that, which makes 'loom' an odd choice of words.
Take this stretch of the Canada Line. Is it honestly such a terrible built environment compared to a hypothetical LRT-ized Eglinton East? Can you quantify the loss?