[diminutive]

I am not sure is this applies to Eglinton, because some of the deep stations may be required to flatten the slope of the tracks.

You'd think the line could be closer to the surface if the stations were shorter. The need for flat 90m platforms must drive a good deal of the tunnel's depth.

Given ridership demand, passenger volumes could easily be handled by a 20m people mover type train operating at high frequencies.

 

[salsa]

There is so much misinformed crap in that video its saddening..

Fares aren't set by the P3's. Its the regional council that sets fares, and they are the ones who decided to set fares at $3.75.

A P3 is a contract to operate and maintain the service on the governments terms, With a competitive bidding process to come to the lowest possible price to deliver the desired services. Its what the new 407 extension will operate like, not the sale of the original. (Government owned, rates set by the province, operations contracted out to Cintra) Control of fares, frequencies, etc. are all still in the publics hands, its simply the day to day operations and maintenance contracts that are awarded to the most competitive bidder. The private corporation involved couldn't give 2 craps about fare prices, increased fare simply benefit the province (the one paying for the operations), the contractor gets the set amount for the completed work no matter what the fare is.

I'm starting to see this misinformation crap on the subways too. Fucking union probably just wants the jobs.

 

[ssiguy2]

The Canada Line and trains are always spotlessly clean and the trains run every 200 seconds all day.............hardly lousy service by any stretch of the imagination.

It is Translink that sets the fares, frequency, and any of the operations of the line. If the trains were longer the price differential would be relatively small. Unless you were told ahead of time that this was a PPP you would never, ever know the difference and of course in 30 years it completely reverts back to Translink hands.

Like I said, PPP is corporate welfare when current infrastructure is handed off to the private sector but on new infrastructure it can be very effective. As with everything, the devil is in the details.

 

[Johnny Au]

I saw that ad on the bus. Its webpage has the video that I linked to in my earlier post here. The QR code scanning does not actually work for me, even with the use of two QR code scanning apps on my phone.

 

[Fred.S]

I think P3s have their place, and government-run projects have theirs. Both can be done right and wrong. I think it's wrong to villify either method. There has to be a project-by-project look and context to whether either one works.

If a city has experience and the tools in building rail transit, then it makes sense for the city to do it. If it doesn't, then a P3 using a company with the experience in doing so would be appropriate.

For example, Toronto has experience building subways and streetcars/LRT. The TTC has the staff that could manage such a project as the Eglinton LRT. In that case, I feel it would be appropriate for the city to build it, instead of it being built by P3, and could be done cheaper. In a city like Waterloo, which is getting a new LRT, it makes more sense for the line to built by P3, as I'm sure they dont have any staff or engineers with any experience in such a project, so bringing in a private company to do it makes sense.

This is an over-simplification, but it's how I see it.