What I really despise is the fact that our development is always hinging on the fact that we need to beg the provincial and federal govts for money and implement tax hikes or else we cant budge an inch...
Surely after so many years of fruitless begging they shouldve realized that they need to find other ways. Apart from private funding via the selling of development rights to developers why cant ttc also implement a small (can be temporary) hike in fares directly to a DRL construction fund? Last year TTC reported ridership of over 528 million and growing. Lets say there was a 25c hike in fares (which YRT likes to do regularly). that would equate to over $130m a year. Obviously any hike would almost cause a riot, so the key for this is keeping the public informed and to sell to them that the money is solely for construction. This would also give a greater sense of appreciation to the project as it is knowingly being paid partly out of the rider's own pocket instead of from some unknown money tree.

A reference project that I can recall is the Hong Kong metro station sliding screen doors. There was a 10c (HK dollar which is basically almost 1.5c CAN) fare hike over several years that directly paid down the cost of the doors. In the end this minute hike paid for over $1B of the $2B project

The moral of all this is no government has enough money to spare for such a huge project and to shake a dying tree would be fruitless (pun intended). Instead the TTC should look to alternative ways such as having the riders pay for what they use by implementing a construction fund hike (in a well managed and informed manner) and cooperating with developers to sell rights to build property over subway stations.
 
blixtex said:
Would building a plastic type tunnel over the current RT to help shield against the elements have made any sense?
Click to expand...

I made a similar suggestion with regards to an elevated subway on Sheppard East, as opposed to the LRT plan or the tunneled version. It does certainly have a weather benefit, but I think the larger benefit is noise reduction.

blixtex said:
Keep the current route? Replace the tracks and 'RT' with something more commonly used. I've seen lighter rail trains in SF that are like subways but smaller and seem alot less expensive. The Stations are all there already.
Click to expand...

The TC LRT vehicles fit that bill nicely.

blixtex said:
As for a DRL, I think the most that would make sense is an express line of sorts all the way up to Richmond Hill. Stops at Steeles, Highway 7, Finch, Shepphard, Eglinton, Bloor, Dundas, King and finally Union. NY has 3 lines side by side often.
Click to expand...

The option that I prefer is building the DRL as a GO REX tunnel, and having the northeast branch of it become the Richmond Hill GO line. One route on it would use the DRL, the other would use Union. This would not only drastically relieve the Yonge line, it would also hit RHC, reducing the need for the subway extension.

I've done some rough calculations, and double tracking and electrifying the RH GO line from just north of Lawrence on Don Mills to RHC, and building a tunnel from Eglinton to that point on Don Mills would be roughly cost-neutral with extending the Yonge Subway from Finch to RHC. Why build a line that will make congestion on the Yonge line worse when you can build a line that will drastically reduce the congestion, and hit the same terminus "hub" that the subway extension would?
 
cplchanb said:
What I really despise is the fact that our development is always hinging on the fact that we need to beg the provincial and federal govts for money and implement tax hikes or else we cant budge an inch...
Surely after so many years of fruitless begging they shouldve realized that they need to find other ways. Apart from private funding via the selling of development rights to developers why cant ttc also implement a small (can be temporary) hike in fares directly to a DRL construction fund? Last year TTC reported ridership of over 528 million and growing. Lets say there was a 25c hike in fares (which YRT likes to do regularly). that would equate to over $130m a year. Obviously any hike would almost cause a riot, so the key for this is keeping the public informed and to sell to them that the money is solely for construction. This would also give a greater sense of appreciation to the project as it is knowingly being paid partly out of the rider's own pocket instead of from some unknown money tree.

A reference project that I can recall is the Hong Kong metro station sliding screen doors. There was a 10c (HK dollar which is basically almost 1.5c CAN) fare hike over several years that directly paid down the cost of the doors. In the end this minute hike paid for over $1B of the $2B project

The moral of all this is no government has enough money to spare for such a huge project and to shake a dying tree would be fruitless (pun intended). Instead the TTC should look to alternative ways such as having the riders pay for what they use by implementing a construction fund hike (in a well managed and informed manner) and cooperating with developers to sell rights to build property over subway stations.
Click to expand...
What about getting car drivers to pay more for the cost of their infrastructure? Roads are highly subsidized for drivers. London instituted a toll to go downtown, didn't they? Why couldn't Toronto do the same? The money could go to provide alternatives, so fewer people will drive on the roads.
 
newearthling said:
What about getting car drivers to pay more for the cost of their infrastructure? Roads are highly subsidized for drivers. London instituted a toll to go downtown, didn't they? Why couldn't Toronto do the same? The money could go to provide alternatives, so fewer people will drive on the roads.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, you're right. However, London has one big difference from Toronto: it had the transit infrastructure already in place to cope with the increased demand that the CCZ brought. Toronto doesn't.

Toronto has kind of a chicken and egg thing going on right now. No money for transit infrastructure, but not enough transit infrastructure to allow people to comfortably switch to transit if the economics of driving are altered. It's very hard to ask people to either pay more to drive or switch to transit when the transit infrastructure required to accommodate that trip is either a) non-existent, or b) overcrowded.
 
What about getting car drivers to pay more for the cost of their infrastructure? Roads are highly subsidized for drivers.
Click to expand...
Not so, recent studies made it obvious that motorists pay more than their share already. Time for transit users (highly subsidized) to pony up.
 
spider said:
Not so, recent studies made it obvious that motorists pay more than their share already. Time for transit users (highly subsidized) to pony up.
Click to expand...

Sure, alter the economics against transit riding more and see just how drivable the streets get (so in other words, limiting traffic requires a public subsidy).

I think *everyone* has to pay more one way or another.

AoD
 
Has the cost of pollution on health care been factored into the cost of car infrastructure?

http://grist.org/news/paris-bans-cars-makes-transit-free-to-fight-air-pollution/
Paris bans cars, makes transit free to fight air pollution
By John Upton

Unseasonably warm weather has triggered unprecedented air pollution levels in Paris. Over the weekend, the city responded by offering free public transportation and bike sharing. (Similar measures were taken throughout nearby Belguim, which also reduced speed limits.) But that wasn’t enough to fix the problem, so Paris and 22 surrounding areas are taking more extreme steps, banning nearly half of vehicles from their roads.

Private cars and motorcycles with even registration numbers will be barred from the streets on Monday. Unless the air quality improves quickly and dramatically, odd registration numbers will be banned from the roads on Tuesday. Electric vehicles and hybrids will be exempted, as will any cars carrying at least three people. About 700 police officers will be stationed at checkpoints, handing out $31 (€22) fines to violators.
...
Trains and buses will remain free while the car restrictions are in place, giving Parisians yet more public places where they can nuzzle and talk excitedly about government policies until the ugly smog burns off.

more at source

It is just a temporary measure, but it may be one they revisit, if air quality remains poor.
I know not all pollution is caused by vehicular traffic. It is a lot harder to go after big companies spewing stuff into the skies. But it is something to remind people, that public transit benefits people in more ways than just easing congestion.
 
spider said:
Not so, recent studies made it obvious that motorists pay more than their share already. Time for transit users (highly subsidized) to pony up.
Click to expand...
What recent studies? Any study I've ever read has found motorists to be the most heavily subsidized. Let's not forget, you don't pay a tariff to ride the roads, whereas a transit rider pays a tariff to enter the service. In Toronto, that tariff pays for the vast majority of operating the system, far more so than in other cities too.
 
JasonParis said:
What recent studies?
Click to expand...

I did a quick search and found:

The need for road surface maintenance is greatly attributable to the heaviest vehicles. Based on the findings of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) road test, damage caused by heavy trucks was long thought to increase with approximately the fourth power of the axle load. This means that one axle of 10 tons on a heavy truck was 160,000 times more damaging to a road surface than an axle of 0.5 tons (car scale).
Click to expand...

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/03.htm


Other sources suggest that the number is more like 10,000 times. This means that the entire re-construction costs for roads should be borne by the trucks (and buses) and not cars. If we wanted to price things fairly, trucks would pay a whole lot more and all merchandise should go up as a result.
 
BurlOak said:
Other sources suggest that the number is more like 10,000 times. This means that the entire re-construction costs for roads should be borne by the trucks (and buses) and not cars. If we wanted to price things fairly, trucks would pay a whole lot more and all merchandise should go up as a result.
Click to expand...

I remember reading something by the TTI which suggested dedicated freight shuttle systems, both because of the disproportionate road wear and impacts on traffic (more frequent collisions).

Kinda off topic...

EDIT: Found it:

Currently, heavy-duty diesel trucks carry most of the freight load. One of the most important attributes of trucks is their flexibility. They use existing highway and roadway infrastructure to reach dispersed and scattered distribution locations. But this flexibility comes at a high cost: infrastructure deterioration, congestion, traffic safety issues and pollution. Many critical freight transportation corridors in Texas are becoming congested to the point that an alternative means of transportation with fewer adverse impacts is needed.

Railroads are a perfect choice for moving high volumes of freight traffic between two points. However, due to the operating and network characteristics of heavy freight rail, railroads tend to favor hauling freight over longer distances and refrain from carrying freight less than 600 miles.

The Solution: The Freight Shuttle System

Because the FSS motors are electrically powered, the FSS will not add to existing pollution, will advance the United States’ effort to achieve energy independence and will allow more environmentally friendly energy choices.The FSS is the ideal medium to connect two closely located points (within 600 miles) handling large volumes of freight traffic. By borrowing features from both heavy-duty diesel trucks and railroads, the FSS is economical for shorter distances and environmentally friendly. Much like trucks, the FSS’s transporters are autonomous: each transporter has its own motors and travels independently of other transporters. Inspired by railroads, FSS transporters use steel wheels to carry either a standard-size freight container or an over-the-road trailer. Moreover, the FSS runs on an elevated, dedicated right-of-way to avoid interference with and from other transportation systems.

However, unlike any other freight transportation mode, the FSS uses efficient, linear induction motors. Because these motors are electrically powered, the FSS will not add to existing pollution, will advance the United States’ effort to achieve energy independence and will allow more environmentally friendly energy choices. Moreover, by offering shippers and carriers a lower-cost option to over-the-road transport, the FSS directly reduces pollution, infrastructure damage and highway congestion, while improving traffic safety.


View of a freight shuttle trailer.
The Freight Shuttle System at a Glance

Is privately financed, operated, and maintained in keeping with the commercial nature of goods movement.
Helps create value for the public from underperforming assets – the Highway System.
Reduces infrastructure deterioration by providing an alternative to over-the-road trucking.
Reduces congestion on overburdened roadways and improves safety.
Enhances economic competitiveness by providing a more efficient goods-movement system.
Reduces dependence on foreign oil.
Enhances community livability by creating far fewer emissions than other alternatives.
Creates new industry and generates new jobs.
Click to expand...

On closer inspection, seems like Lyle Langley bought a distribution company...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top