[EnviroTO]

Well, at least with a non-binding referendum the government can't use the line that "they received a mandate" to do something when clearly they did not.

 

[lenaitch]

By grammar definition a referendum is binding; a plebiscite is not. However, there is no legal basis for referenda in Ontario unless a particular piece of legislation binds the government on the outcome. In the amalgamation question, it was a junior level of government asking a question on the action of a more senior level (ignoring the fact that all municipalities are subordinate to the province). Responding to or ignoring the results of a referendum is a political decision.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Generally, referendums have been replaced by opinion polls. IF someone asks for one. Also how someone interprets the results, including the "margin of error".

From link.

You’ve probably heard or seen results like this: “This statistical survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.” What does this mean? Most surveys are based on information collected from a sample of individuals, not the entire population (as a census would be). A certain amount of error is bound to occur — not in the sense of calculation error (although there may be some of that, too) but in the sense of sampling error, which is the error that occurs simply because the researchers aren’t asking everyone. The margin of error is supposed to measure the maximum amount by which the sample results are expected to differ from those of the actual population. Because the results of most survey questions can be reported in terms of percentages, the margin of error most often appears as a percentage, as well.

How do you interpret a margin of error? Suppose you know that 51% of people sampled say that they plan to vote for Ms. Calculation in the upcoming election. Now, projecting these results to the whole voting population, you would have to add and subtract the margin of error and give a range of possible results in order to have sufficient confidence that you’re bridging the gap between your sample and the population. Supposing a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, you would be pretty confident that between 48% (= 51% – 3%) and 54% (= 51% + 3%) of the population will vote for Ms. Calculation in the election, based on the sample results. In this case, Ms. Calculation may get slightly more or slightly less than the majority of votes and could either win or lose the election. This has become a familiar situation in recent years when the media want to report results on Election Night, but based on early exit polling results, the election is “too close to call.”

An (provincial) election should be more accurate than an opinion poll. In the last 2018 election, the turnout was 56.6%, which meant that 43.4% did not care. A census should be even more accurate, except that there are those who don't want to participate.

 

[Rainforest]

A regional plebiscite regarding the Scarborough transit network would be a good idea. Should have been done 15 years ago, or at least around 2013-2014 when the subway plan was accepted as the front-runner.

In the absence of the plebiscite, the election results and the position of those elected is a more accurate indicator than opinion polls. Opinion polls involve respondents many of whom hear about the issue for the first time and didn't have a chance to develop an informed opinion. They have to choose on the spot, within seconds. Furthermore, some of the polls were based on questions purposely formulated to skew the results in favor of LRT.

Election results do not give an absolutely accurate answer, either; some correctly mentioned above that people vote on a package of multiple issue, and name recognition certainly plays a role. But, election campaigns run for many weeks, the candidates get feedback from the would-be voters, and can estimate what the constituents want. Therefore, if nearly all candidates support the subway, then they expect that position to give them more votes.

 

[syn]

It's not really much worse than the rt in every way but it is absolutely no better than the rt, for l to more money than a full refurbishment and extension. The lrt provides no benefits over a completely refurbished and extended rt, and comes in at a much higher cost. If there was no rt before, the lrt would be a pretty good plan, but replacing the rt with it is not (in my opinion anyways)

Higher capacity, modern, and easily expandable. I'd say it was certainly better than the RT, without question.

As for what people prefer - of course people prefer subways. Ask anyone anywhere in the GTA if they'd like to live on or near a subway line and the answer would probably be close to 100%.

That doesn't mean building a subway is a wise course of action when all factors are taken into consideration. We can't just build transit based on what people prefer.

 

[afransen]

A regional plebiscite regarding the Scarborough transit network would be a good idea. Should have been done 15 years ago, or at least around 2013-2014 when the subway plan was accepted as the front-runner.

In the absence of the plebiscite, the election results and the position of those elected is a more accurate indicator than opinion polls. Opinion polls involve respondents many of whom hear about the issue for the first time and didn't have a chance to develop an informed opinion. They have to choose on the spot, within seconds. Furthermore, some of the polls were based on questions purposely formulated to skew the results in favor of LRT.

Election results do not give an absolutely accurate answer, either; some correctly mentioned above that people vote on a package of multiple issue, and name recognition certainly plays a role. But, election campaigns run for many weeks, the candidates get feedback from the would-be voters, and can estimate what the constituents want. Therefore, if nearly all candidates support the subway, then they expect that position to give them more votes.

Probably the best thing would have been to put the subway up against a more extensive expansion with lower cost technology (such that it was of comparable cost). Of course they would pick the expensive solution over nothing.

 

[ARG1]

Higher capacity, modern, and easily expandable. I'd say it was certainly better than the RT, without question.

As for what people prefer - of course people prefer subways. Ask anyone anywhere in the GTA if they'd like to live on or near a subway line and the answer would probably be close to 100%.

That doesn't mean building a subway is a wise course of action when all factors are taken into consideration. We can't just build transit based on what people prefer.

In what universe does an LRT have higher capacity than ICTS lol? If you like LRT that's fine, but don't spread misinformation.

 

[Coolstar]

Higher capacity, modern, and easily expandable. I'd say it was certainly better than the RT, without question.

As for what people prefer - of course people prefer subways. Ask anyone anywhere in the GTA if they'd like to live on or near a subway line and the answer would probably be close to 100%.

That doesn't mean building a subway is a wise course of action when all factors are taken into consideration. We can't just build transit based on what people prefer.

I'm sorry but how is this,

Higher capacity than this.

 

[slapped_chicken]

Higher capacity, modern, and easily expandable. I'd say it was certainly better than the RT, without question.

As for what people prefer - of course people prefer subways. Ask anyone anywhere in the GTA if they'd like to live on or near a subway line and the answer would probably be close to 100%.

That doesn't mean building a subway is a wise course of action when all factors are taken into consideration. We can't just build transit based on what people prefer.

With regards to being modern - refurbishing the light metro line and installing the necessary infrastructure to keep it operating smoothly during periods of snowfall allows it to be just as modern a system as any LRT and arguably cheaper to construct.

For capacity - if both are completely automated at high frequencies it's fair to assume they carry high capacities. However, a notable difference between low-floor LRVs and light metros is that the low-floor impedes capacity during crush hour by limiting standing space and creating choke points where the bogies are, and doors are often more narrow and less frequent. This can increase dwell times in low-floor LRT systems over high-floor systems during very critical ridership levels. Now, theoretically you could just go with high-floor light rail and get the same layout of a light metro, however the issue with that is implementing overhead wire which would require reconstruction of the SRT stations due to their roof height (same problem with the low floor LRV plan) all for achieving the ideal capacity and passenger flows through stations/trains of the existing light metro that could be modernized to the same or better capacity for less of a cost.

For being easily expandable, yes, it is more easily expandable as an LRT is flexible and can run at grade making extensions cheaper.

 

[ARG1]

With regards to being modern - refurbishing the light metro line and installing the necessary infrastructure to keep it operating smoothly during periods of snowfall allows it to be just as modern a system as any LRT and arguably cheaper to construct.

For capacity - if both are completely automated at high frequencies it's fair to assume they carry high capacities. However, a notable difference between low-floor LRVs and light metros is that the low-floor impedes capacity during crush hour by limiting standing space and creating choke points where the bogies are, and doors are often more narrow and less frequent. This can increase dwell times in low-floor LRT systems over high-floor systems during very critical ridership levels. Now, theoretically you could just go with high-floor light rail and get the same layout of a light metro, however the issue with that is implementing overhead wire which would require reconstruction of the SRT stations due to their roof height (same problem with the low floor LRV plan) all for achieving the ideal capacity and passenger flows through stations/trains of the existing light metro that could be modernized to the same or better capacity for less of a cost.

For being easily expandable, yes, it is more easily expandable as an LRT is flexible and can run at grade making extensions cheaper.

In regards to that last part, its not even a good thing. If we allow politicians who want to save a quick buck by running extensions at grade, we immediately lose out on stuff like consistent scheduling, or full automation which means 90s headways is no longer an option, and as a result the maximum capacity ends up falling way short to Light Metro.

 

[superelevation]

How do you plan on doing this when only Mark I cars will fit the tunnel???? Then there is the accessibility issue.

If you read SRT wikipedia, you will see what against your idea.

Thompson is really flip flopping in the name of votes since he and Glen approved the LRT plan as a TTC commissioner.

It will only take 3.5 years to replace the current SRT with LRT and that includes rebuilding the tunnel and Kennedy Station. Its possible to have the extension to Malvern up and running as well. The Malvern could open in phases.

The tiny tunnel could be replaced or we could just buy cars with the same profile - this was all in my post . . .

Replacing the SRT with an LRT is again a bad idea . . .you'd have to rebuild the tunnel and far more, Vancouver does SkyTrain extensions for the same price we do LRT extensions - so why not just stick with the superior mode - it's higher capacity, more accessible, and doesn't require a large scale rebuild

Higher capacity, modern, and easily expandable. I'd say it was certainly better than the RT, without question.

As for what people prefer - of course people prefer subways. Ask anyone anywhere in the GTA if they'd like to live on or near a subway line and the answer would probably be close to 100%.

That doesn't mean building a subway is a wise course of action when all factors are taken into consideration. We can't just build transit based on what people prefer.

Its *not* higher capacity, the only thing which is not modern about the RT are the cars which we have refused to replace, and on the expandability piece - Vancouver and other cities with ICTS have expanded just fine . . . the system is not proprietary . . . several companies bid to build new trains when Vancouver put out its latest RFP

But we could, if we stopped building every line as a 6 car TR capable line. Using light metro would give the high speeds and capacities of Subways without the crappy politically dependent street running of virtually all our LRTs (or proposed LRTs).

You can't compare the absolute worst case subway against the best case LRT and suggest that's justification for LRT. We are *not* building good Calgary or LA Gold Line style LRT, we are building trams.

 

[drum118]

The tiny tunnel could be replaced or we could just buy cars with the same profile - this was all in my post . . .

Replacing the SRT with an LRT is again a bad idea . . .you'd have to rebuild the tunnel and far more, Vancouver does SkyTrain extensions for the same price we do LRT extensions - so why not just stick with the superior mode - it's higher capacity, more accessible, and doesn't require a large scale rebuild


Its *not* higher capacity, the only thing which is not modern about the RT are the cars which we have refused to replace, and on the expandability piece - Vancouver and other cities with ICTS have expanded just fine . . . the system is not proprietary . . . several companies bid to build new trains when Vancouver put out its latest RFP

But we could, if we stopped building every line as a 6 car TR capable line. Using light metro would give the high speeds and capacities of Subways without the crappy politically dependent street running of virtually all our LRTs (or proposed LRTs).

You can't compare the absolute worst case subway against the best case LRT and suggest that's justification for LRT. We are *not* building good Calgary or LA Gold Line style LRT, we are building trams.

Clearly you don't understand construction and equipment cost as well construction timeline.

Cost to rebuilt the tunnel is about $200 plus millions and will require over a year to build to meet X replacement.

Cost of building a new Mark I that will cover design and building a car at about $8-10 million/ car since only 36 -40 cars will be needed. Even going to 50 will not reduce the cost very much. It took 3 years to get 36 cars out of Kingston and how will that be impacted with Vancouver order?? Who else will buy these new Mark I other than Detroit if they keep the system which is not looking good??

What is the cost to bring stations up today standards with elevators?? What is the time frame to do it?? What about the guideway???

Other than an extension to Malvern, where do you think the line can be built to???

An LRT line can be interline with other lines and can be built with more options than the SRT. An LRV can carry more riders than the RT on day one and can be extended as needed to meet future ridership.

Outside Vancouver, who has the largest system and how many systems worldwide??? How many systems worldwide using LRT/tram systems??

TTC Doesn't Like Orphan Systems, considering this was force on them by the government and prefer a streetcar line like it did in the 70's/80's when they plan the line.

Kennedy station has to be rebuilt and there will be no time saving transferring from the RT or X like it is today.

You are looking at about 2027 for the new Mark I up and running and it is the same time line for an LRT System to Malvern.

No one here including me know the real breakdown where riders go once they hit Kennedy as well the percentage of those numbers. The same apply to STC. TTC made have some numbers and if so, they have never shown it to the public.

Speed...Speed...only matter to long haul riders and most riders are short distance riders who use slower speed systems.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Higher capacity, modern, and easily expandable. I'd say it was certainly better than the RT, without question.

As for what people prefer - of course people prefer subways. Ask anyone anywhere in the GTA if they'd like to live on or near a subway line and the answer would probably be close to 100%.

That doesn't mean building a subway is a wise course of action when all factors are taken into consideration. We can't just build transit based on what people prefer.

The problem with referendums currently, is that is also "first-past-the-post" winnings.

From link.

On 1 January 1970, the City of Thunder Bay was formed through the merger of the cities of Fort William, Port Arthur, and the geographic townships of Neebing and McIntyre. Its name was the result of a referendum held previously on 23 June 1969, to determine the new name of the amalgamated Fort William and Port Arthur. Officials debated over the names to be put on the ballot, taking suggestions from residents including "Lakehead" and "The Lakehead". Predictably, the vote split between the two, and "Thunder Bay" was the victor. The final tally was "Thunder Bay" with 15,870, "Lakehead" with 15,302, and "The Lakehead" with 8,377.

If Thunder Bay had used "ranked balloting", we would have likely had a different result for its name.

 

[afransen]

Speed...Speed...only matter to long haul riders and most riders are short distance riders who use slower speed systems.

Is this a self-fulfilling prophecy though? Make a slow system, and long distance trips avoid transit like the plague (just take the car). There are a good number of people taking long distance trips. Buses are excellent for short trips if you give them good priority (bus lanes, queue jumps, etc.).

In terms of extensions, maybe what they could have done (instead of subway) is extend a branch to Malvern, and another branch to UTSC.

 

[Johnny Au]

The problem with referendums currently, is that is also "first-past-the-post" winnings.

From link.


If Thunder Bay had used "ranked balloting", we would have likely had a different result for its name.

The consolation prize is that Thunder Bay's university is called Lakehead University.