[superman]

New Poll Numbers

The poll also suggests that 61 per cent of Torontonians believe that private money should be used to help construct the Sheppard subway line. Additionally, 63 per cent of voters favour Ford's emphasis on constructing subways rather than surface LRTs.

The second number is in line with the poll done earlier in which people would rather have underground LRT/HRT rather than surface LRT.

Source: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110301/ford-has-approval-poll-110301/20110301?hub=TorontoNewHome

 

[Tulse]

And 62% want a pony.

Frankly, these numbers are silly. First off, there simply is no "private money" option -- the taxpayers will still have to pay, even if that means losing increases in tax revenue due to development (presuming there even is such development, and that the arrangements don't leave the public directly on the hook for shortfalls). There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And of course, all things being equal, everyone would prefer subways. But the whole point is that things aren't equal, in that subways cost more to build and to run. The question properly stated is whether one is willing to trade a number of kilometres of LRT for fewer kilometres of subway.

 

[gweed123]

And 62% want a pony.

Frankly, these numbers are silly. First off, there simply is no "private money" option -- the taxpayers will still have to pay, even if that means losing increases in tax revenue due to development (presuming there even is such development, and that the arrangements don't leave the public directly on the hook for shortfalls). There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And of course, all things being equal, everyone would prefer subways. But the whole point is that things aren't equal, in that subways cost more to build and to run. The question properly stated is whether one is willing to trade a number of kilometres of LRT for fewer kilometres of subway.

Frankly, I'm not opposed to the idea of PPPs, as long as they're done right (ie NOT the 407). The biggest issue with transit today is getting the capital funding necessary to build large-scale transit infrastructure. If PPPs can get those tunnels in the ground, go for it. I think in that case, the reduction in capital expense is worth it, even if it means an increase in payments in the operating budget. It's easier to absorb the budget hit these projects have if they're spread out over a longer period of time.

Also, I would tend to believe that if a private investor were involved, the project would be less affected by the political tides (not isolated, but not as affected). Politics of course is the 2nd biggest issue facing transit today.

 

[Tulse]

Frankly, I'm not opposed to the idea of PPPs, as long as they're done right [...] If PPPs can get those tunnels in the ground, go for it. I think in that case, the reduction in capital expense is worth it, even if it means an increase in payments in the operating budget. It's easier to absorb the budget hit these projects have if they're spread out over a longer period of time.

I don't disagree, but I don't think the approach is actually being sold as merely a financing method (and one that actually may increase the total cost of the project). PPP is instead being suggested as getting something for almost nothing. Tax increment financing just shifts when something gets paid, not who pays for it or how much. And without some sort of shortfall protection, TIF is nothing more than government-backed land speculation -- if the private financier has a guaranteed payout, and the tax rates don't rise as expected, the city is directly on the hook.

 

[nfitz]

I don't really consider the South Transitway section between Hurdman and Billings Bridge to be a scar on the landscape.

That's an old railway right-of-way isn't it? There's no road paralleling it. Not comparable.

And I find it interesting that you consider a trench that can potentially be landscaped to have its visual impact minimized a 'scar', yet you advocate for a 6 lane roadway with two centre lanes being used for LRT. How is that not a 'scar'?

How in any conceivable way would a road with LRT in the middle be a scar? There's no trench ... I'm just not following your logic here. If there is no trench, then how do you scar the landscape???

 

[Dan416]

I very much support the idea of trenching Eglinton where appropriate: Looking on Bing Maps, I would just have the Eglinton LRT come above-ground just west of Weston and be trenched (or elevated) on the north side of Eglinton pretty much the whole time, and turn at Renforth (since the Mississauga BRT terminates at Renforth) to come up to the Airport. As long as it's built so that it can be decked over after, I think it's fabulous.

 

[sixrings]

JUST TOLL THE ROADS ALREADY.... and the 905/416 Entry points

 

[jje1000]

JUST TOLL THE ROADS ALREADY.... and the 905/416 Entry points

But I pay enough taxes! Where's the respect for the taxpayer? Are we to be nickled-and-dimed to death?

Also, tolling roads will negatively impact business in Toronto, which is already in a pretty bad state, according to Glen, our resident business expert.

Just sayin'

 

[nfitz]

Glen is wrong if he says that. Tolling the roads will help business, if it can eliminate congestion. We pay a fortune for people being stuck in traffic, goods not moving.

How about some respect for the taxpayer - I pay good money to have roads I can drive on. I can't drive on them if they are a parking lot. Toll the roads already.

 

[gweed123]

That's an old railway right-of-way isn't it? There's no road paralleling it. Not comparable.

The rail ROW is next to it, or rather about 50m away. Riverside Dr runs directly beside it for a significant stretch (from Hurdman Stn to just after the hospital). Look at the intersection of Riverside and Smyth on Google, you'll see what I mean.

How in any conceivable way would a road with LRT in the middle be a scar? There's no trench ... I'm just not following your logic here. If there is no trench, then how do you scar the landscape???

Do you honestly think that a super wide arterial road is an attractive thing? You don't need a trench to scar the landscape, you just need too much of an unattractive thing.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The rail ROW is next to it, or rather about 50m away. Riverside Dr runs directly beside it for a significant stretch (from Hurdman Stn to just after the hospital). Look at the intersection of Riverside and Smyth on Google, you'll see what I mean.



Do you honestly think that a super wide arterial road is an attractive thing? You don't need a trench to scar the landscape, you just need too much of an unattractive thing.

By that logic than the 401 or any non trenched highway is not a scar, right? If we are defining scar by the height of the ROW relative to ground level than yup. LOL just wanted to point out how ludicris that line of thinking is.

 

[gweed123]

By that logic than the 401 or any non trenched highway is not a scar, right? If we are defining scar by the height of the ROW relative to ground level than yup. LOL just wanted to point out how ludicris that line of thinking is.

Umm... If I consider a 6 lane arterial to be an unattractive streetscape, what do you think I consider the 401 to be??? I wasn't defining it by the height of the ROW, I was defining by the degree of negative impact it has on the surrounding area, particularly how much of a detraction it is to pedestrian movement patterns, and the negative visual impact that it has.

What I was saying is that a trench doesn't necessarily have to be a scar on the landscape. If you buffer it properly (both in terms of visual buffering, and sound buffering), and provide sufficient pedestrian links over the trench, then I don't really consider it to be a scar on the landscape.

 

[MisterF]

Umm... If I consider a 6 lane arterial to be an unattractive streetscape, what do you think I consider the 401 to be??? I wasn't defining it by the height of the ROW, I was defining by the degree of negative impact it has on the surrounding area, particularly how much of a detraction it is to pedestrian movement patterns, and the negative visual impact that it has.

What I was saying is that a trench doesn't necessarily have to be a scar on the landscape. If you buffer it properly (both in terms of visual buffering, and sound buffering), and provide sufficient pedestrian links over the trench, then I don't really consider it to be a scar on the landscape.

A six lane arterial doesn't necessarily have to be unattractive. There are roads that size and bigger that are magnets for pedestrians - Michigan Avenue, Champs Elysees, Gran Via, Broadway. Mind you, the Richview corridor will never look like those streets and neither will any other suburban arterial where the intersections are half a kilometre apart. But still, a wide street is only bad if it's designed poorly. Unfortunately they almost always are.

 

[nfitz]

The rail ROW is next to it, or rather about 50m away. Riverside Dr runs directly beside it for a significant stretch (from Hurdman Stn to just after the hospital). Look at the intersection of Riverside and Smyth on Google, you'll see what I mean.

It's all been built since I've lived in Ottawa. Wow, Riverside is desolate. And not a pedestrian in site. Surely this is an example of exactly what we don't want to build!

Do you honestly think that a super wide arterial road is an attractive thing? You don't need a trench to scar the landscape, you just need too much of an unattractive thing.

Super-wide ... sure. But you said it would be only 6 lanes + LRT. That's only 3 lanes to cross at at a ago ... you could do that with traffic signals in many places. Seems pretty tame to 10 and 12 lane roads you get in some places.

 

[gweed123]

It's all been built since I've lived in Ottawa. Wow, Riverside is desolate. And not a pedestrian in site. Surely this is an example of exactly what we don't want to build!

The reason that stretch is desolate is because there is a large section between the Rideau River and Riverside that has been quardoned off (it was a former dump site). That inherently stagnates the street beside it. Just trying to establish some causality here, it's not dead because of the Transitway. If anything, the row of highrises and dense townhomes immediately to the east show how much of an effect the Transitway has had on spurring development.

Super-wide ... sure. But you said it would be only 6 lanes + LRT. That's only 3 lanes to cross at at a ago ... you could do that with traffic signals in many places. Seems pretty tame to 10 and 12 lane roads you get in some places.

Like MisterF said, it all depends on design. Yes, you CAN make it look good. All I'm saying is that it's not as simple as "trench = bad, at-grade = ok". The urban design characteristics of both will determine whether or not the ROW has a positive or negative effect on the surrounding area. I can find some great examples of rail running through a trench, and I can find some awful ones. Same as I can find some great examples of suburban avenues, and I can find some awful ones. It all depends on how you design it. I was just trying to refute your statement that any trench through the Richview corridor would be "a scar", while I'm saying it depends on how you design it.