[nfitz]

Is it just me or do people on the right generally seem less intelligent then their more liberal counterparts. Whenever I see a debate with a Sun reading conservative and a liberal, the conservative generally seems to base their arguments on name calling (libtard, commies etc...) while the liberal uses actual FACTS.

One might get the opposite opinion if one compares a left-wing paper (Star ... though it's more centrist than left really - given their endless anti-Miller tirades) to a different right-wing paper (National Post).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

And it makes fiscally sense to build and constantly two forms of urban transportation in a city whose urban area only has close to 6 million residents? I would like to call BS on that one, we are not LA nor New York that can afford them. We can only afford one form of transportation, and personally I think Ford made the right call in killing Transit City.

What you just said is so ridiculous that I can't even tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. I'm seriously praying that what you said was sarcasm.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I strongly agree with the New York Times blog post linking intelligence with political affiliation. Interestingly enough, the study was done by Brock University in St. Catharines.

To be relevant to the thread, here is the latest Toronto Star article on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT:


I once had a class taught by Paul Bedford. He is a very good former chief urban planner. I once asked him that if Rob Ford were to give you the position of chief urban planner, Paul Bedford refused, stating that Rob Ford is only good at destroying Toronto. It seems that Rob Ford's head is stuck underground like his transit plan, unwilling to accept very strong evidence from his opposition.

The right-wingers showed up on the comments section of the Toronto Star article with all the bigoted vitriol, preferring yes, ad hominem over hard facts, as usual. In fact, some of the comments are so bigoted that I will not quote them here.

Its sad that real civic engineers needed to come out and say this in public. Anybody with common sense and a small amount of intelligence knows this. Unfortunately Mr. Ford and his supporters lacks both.

 

[ssiguy2]

I'm curious............do all Torontonians {media, left/right wing, transit planners, car huggers, councillors, and you average guy/gal on the street} refue the option of elevation? I just don't get it............you read a hundred articles, opinions, political blogs and so-called experts and the idea of simply elevating the DM to Kennedy section is never even discussed little alone given serious consideration.
I truly do not understand it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

One might get the opposite opinion if one compares a left-wing paper (Star ... though it's more centrist than left really - given their endless anti-Miller tirades) to a different right-wing paper (National Post).

I only used the newspapers as an example. I was trying to say that in general conservatives seem allot more "babyish" then liberals. I've noticed that conservatives often restort to childish rhetoric (eg: name calling, repeating catch-phrases and slogans) and made up nonsense to prove a point while liberals seem more academic in their approach(eg: the use of facts and studies).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm curious............do all Torontonians {media, left/right wing, transit planners, car huggers, councillors, and you average guy/gal on the street} refue the option of elevation? I just don't get it............you read a hundred articles, opinions, political blogs and so-called experts and the idea of simply elevating the DM to Kennedy section is never even discussed little alone given serious consideration.
I truly do not understand it.

Elevation is far too expensive. And lets face it, elevated rail ALWAYS ends up becoming a huge eyesore. They only places I can see elevated rail working is in large open green spaces such as the Don Valley.

 

[Tulse]

Did Ford have the legal right to stop TC.....it appears not but he does have the moral view of TC on his side.

That doesn't matter, unless you think that the rule of law doesn't matter. If Toronto as a whole wanted to kill TC, they would have elected councillors who wanted to kill TC. Ford does not have the legal right to act unilaterally, no matter what his election promises were -- that is how our system of municipal government is set up.

 

[gweed123]

I'm curious............do all Torontonians {media, left/right wing, transit planners, car huggers, councillors, and you average guy/gal on the street} refue the option of elevation? I just don't get it............you read a hundred articles, opinions, political blogs and so-called experts and the idea of simply elevating the DM to Kennedy section is never even discussed little alone given serious consideration.
I truly do not understand it.

I think that the average Torontonian's opinion of it is so vague and undefined that they'll believe whatever they're told by someone they agree with on other issues. If someone on the left or in the centre comes out and says "we should build elevated, because of the following reasons:", I think a lot of people would support it. If Ford came out and said "no way are we building elevated", you can bet your bottom dollar than anyone in the next couple of years who even whispers "elevated" will be met with vitriol from a lot of Ford supporters.

That's the problem with concepts that people have no personal experience with: they're easily manipulated. It would be very hard to tell a Torontonian "subways are just as slow as streetcars" and have them believe it, because 99% of them have been on the subway and will tell you that isn't the case. But if you say "elevated LRT is just as fast as a subway" a lot of people would be likely to challenge you on that, because most of them have never actually rode an LRT, and thus are very susceptible to prejudice and "well so and so told me that they're slower", which is the situation we're dealing with now.

By the way, the same thing holds true for Torontonians' opinions about BRT. Unless you've been to Ottawa (or some places in South America, which is even less likely), and have actually taken OC Transpo, you really haven't experienced a true BRT. The argument against BRT is the same as the argument against LRT: "It's just a glorified bus/streetcar".

 

[Electrify]

Elevation is far too expensive. And lets face it, elevated rail ALWAYS ends up becoming a huge eyesore. They only places I can see elevated rail working is in large open green spaces such as the Don Valley.

It would be cheaper than going underground though, and would still provide the opportunity for grade separation.

 

[Electrify]

I think that the average Torontonian's opinion of it is so vague and undefined that they'll believe whatever they're told by someone they agree with on other issues. If someone on the left or in the centre comes out and says "we should build elevated, because of the following reasons:", I think a lot of people would support it. If Ford came out and said "no way are we building elevated", you can bet your bottom dollar than anyone in the next couple of years who even whispers "elevated" will be met with vitriol from a lot of Ford supporters.

That's the problem with concepts that people have no personal experience with: they're easily manipulated. It would be very hard to tell a Torontonian "subways are just as slow as streetcars" and have them believe it, because 99% of them have been on the subway and will tell you that isn't the case. But if you say "elevated LRT is just as fast as a subway" a lot of people would be likely to challenge you on that, because most of them have never actually rode an LRT, and thus are very susceptible to prejudice and "well so and so told me that they're slower", which is the situation we're dealing with now.

By the way, the same thing holds true for Torontonians' opinions about BRT. Unless you've been to Ottawa (or some places in South America, which is even less likely), and have actually taken OC Transpo, you really haven't experienced a true BRT. The argument against BRT is the same as the argument against LRT: "It's just a glorified bus/streetcar".

I'd argue that the SRT could have "sold" people on elevated LRT, if the project wasn't so mangled. Because of this, people think elevated LRT ALWAYS includes ugly stations, poor track design with surroundings, awkward transfers, uncomfortable trains, and unreliable service in the winter time.

 

[Johnny Au]

I only used the newspapers as an example. I was trying to say that in general conservatives seem allot more "babyish" then liberals. I've noticed that conservatives often restort to childish rhetoric (eg: name calling, repeating catch-phrases and slogans) and made up nonsense to prove a point while liberals seem more academic in their approach(eg: the use of facts and studies).

One of the higher rated Toronto Star comments in that article called said newspaper the "Red Star." I laughed so hard when I saw that. The person who wrote that comment must have read too much Toronto Sun and/or watched too much Sun News Network. The Toronto Star is nowhere near Fightback (marxist.ca) in terms of political viewpoints. In fact, the Toronto Star is politically much closer to the Globe and Mail than the Toronto Star is to Fightback. Yes, I have to agree with TheTigerMaster on this and the Toronto Star comments seem to confirm TheTigerMaster's points.

 

[Electrify]

The False Dilemma: Transit City or Ford City?

I'm hoping that in reality whatever gets pushed through ends up being a compromise of the two, but if it came down to one of these, which would you pick.

Transit City
Sheppard LRT - surface - Don Mills to Morningside - 500m stop spacing
Finch LRT - surface - Humber College to Finch West - 600m stop spacing
Eglinton LRT - surface - Jane to Black Creek and Leslie to Kennedy - 600m stop spacing - underground - Keele to Laird - 800m stop spacing
Possibility of Don Mills, Malvern, Scarborough, Jane, and Waterfront West LRT lines

Ford City
Eglinton-Scarborough subway - grade separated - Keele to McCowan - 1000m stop spacing
Possibility of Sheppard subway and Finch BRT

Personally, I have to reluctantly take Ford's. While Transit City would serve more people, the stop spacing is too close to actually meet the travel needs of the city. Ford's plan does lack quantity, but has more quality than Transit City.

Really, I hope that some compromise is made, preferably surface run but with wider stops. But if I had to choose between one or the other, I'd go with Ford's.

 

[EddyMCD]

If under Ford city the eglinton line was actually subway and not LRT I would maybe take it. But this clusterfuck of a fully underground LRT, which will travel at slower speeds and carry less people then a subway is so stupid.

At least transit city knew what it was trying to do. Although the proper answer should probably be neither.

+1 for transit city

 

[andrewpmk]

I think that the Toronto Star is really exaggerating the capacity of LRT. It claims that it has a capacity of 12000/hour, but this is only true when LRT is designed similar to Calgary or Edmonton. In other words you use long trains almost as long as the subway uses so that you can get close to 1/2 the capacity of subway (since capacity is limited because you are limited to about 5 minute headways with full signal priority on), there are crossing arms at intersections and there are proper platforms instead of small islands and there are footbridges crossing the street so pedestrians do not have to cross traffic lanes to enter the streetcar. Transit City was full of design flaws: there were too many minor stops, the project team was vague about whether there would be proper signal priority, there was the absurd transfer at Don Mills/Sheppard and there were proposals for bike lanes on Sheppard which would have been dangerous since traffic goes very fast there. It would have been only marginally better than the Spadina streetcar which is horribly slow and overcrowded.

 

[Electrify]

If under Ford city the eglinton line was actually subway and not LRT I would maybe take it. But this clusterfuck of a fully underground LRT, which will travel at slower speeds and carry less people then a subway is so stupid.

At least transit city knew what it was trying to do. Although the proper answer should probably be neither.

+1 for transit city

The speed of an Eglinton LRT if underground would be about the same as if it were a subway. In fact, depending on the characteristics of the train design, it might even be faster since our subway trains have relatively slow acceleration specs.