TOareaFan said:
I think the public will, and have a right to, judge any spending of current or future transportation infrastructure dollars on "how does it move more people more effectively"
Click to expand...
Since a lot of the rails you presumably covet for increased passenger traffic remain in CN or CP ownership, not to mention the contribution to congestion from delivery vans and trucks, it doesn't seem productive to simply crap on the need to consider freight in a holistic transportation system.
 
TOareaFan said:
I think the public will, and have a right to, judge any spending of current or future transportation infrastructure dollars on "how does it move more people more effectively"....after all, the new revenue tools are being sold on the basis that the money is needed to boost public transit infrastructure.

As I have stated (boringly repeatedly, I am sure) a $1.2B spend to get 5 more trains into Toronto and back in the transit corridor the Big Move described as the second most dense in the region, is a pretty awful return on spend and that will make the selling of future taxes (which is what us old folks called "revenue tools") to a jaded public very difficult indeed.
Click to expand...

I totally agree and don't have much to add. But this has come up a couple of times so I need to point out that "spend" is a verb not a noun. If you want to use a verb as a noun, usually it's ok but you need to put "-ing" on the end first. So I agree it is an "awful return on spending".
 
k10ery said:
I totally agree and don't have much to add. But this has come up a couple of times so I need to point out that "spend" is a verb not a noun. If you want to use a verb as a noun, usually it's ok but you need to put "-ing" on the end first. So I agree it is an "awful return on spending".
Click to expand...

Thanks teach ;) I will however defend myself as "Spend" as a noun is new(ish) language adaptation gaining popularity in the business world I live in.
 
dowlingm said:
Since a lot of the rails you presumably covet for increased passenger traffic remain in CN or CP ownership, not to mention the contribution to congestion from delivery vans and trucks, it doesn't seem productive to simply crap on the need to consider freight in a holistic transportation system.
Click to expand...

Productive or not, all I am saying is the public will judge the use of their tax contributions (new and old) by how they impact (hopefully improve) their daily lives.
 
TOareaFan said:
Productive or not, all I am saying is the public will judge the use of their tax contributions (new and old) by how they impact (hopefully improve) their daily lives.
Click to expand...
The public aren't transport planners. If they don't get that public monies may be needed to facilitate freight as well as passengers it's up to the City to educate them. I bet there are some "taxpayers" (not you TOaF) who would shut down the transit system between 10am and 4pm because "productive citizens are already at work by then"
 
I drove out to the airport this weekend but didn't park so I didn't capture any photos, but I must say I am surprised by how little clearance it looks like there will be between the air-rail link bridge and the T1 departures ramp coming from the 427 and Dixon exit. It looks like they might need to hang a low clearance sign on a bridge 5 storeys in the air. I can't even imagine what it will be like to be driving on that ramp and passing under that bridge when there is a train going overhead.
 
raptor said:
Metrolinx just launched a new YouTube channel, with lots of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/UnionPearsonExpress?feature=watch
Click to expand...

Was re-reading the thread and noticed we all seem to have missed raptor's well-spotted link a few months back.

Mixed in with the standard cuddly promotional videos is a 3D simulation of the new elevated guideway that gets into some nice foamy details about the technical specs that a few of the less well-adjusted of us had been musing about. ;)

According to the narrator, trains heading to the terminal climb a 2% grade to reach a 28 m highest point and then have a 1.5% descent to the end of the line. (The old SNC proposal was a 3% climb and a 3.3% downgrade.) If anyone wants to build a replica out of popsicle sticks in their basement, there you have it.
 
TOareaFan said:
As I have stated (boringly repeatedly, I am sure) a $1.2B spend to get 5 more trains into Toronto and back in the transit corridor the Big Move described as the second most dense in the region, is a pretty awful return on spend and that will make the selling of future taxes (which is what us old folks called "revenue tools") to a jaded public very difficult indeed.
Click to expand...

The service is presumably planned to improve after that, given the amount of track capacity constructed, and planned improvements such as the Kitchener Multimodal hub and the Guelph Central second platform.

But it does seem that the ARL itself is a bit of an infrastructure hog. If express service to the airport were a regional rail service that continued on to Guelph, Kitchener and London, it would see far higher demand, better justifying the investment in rail capacity.

I've posted a proposal for how the ARL and GTS infrastructure would work perfectly for a subway line to the airport (the DRL West Leg) on the subway and fantasy maps thread
 
The 1.2 billion Is for future service, they will be adding as many as 6 tracks in some places. This money is money wasted if they don't get their transit taxes though.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The 1.2 billion Is for future service, they will be adding as many as 6 tracks in some places. This money is money wasted if they don't get their transit taxes though.
Click to expand...

I don't understand? It is money already spent taken from general taxation......it is wasted if they don't add the service......which they have no definitive plans to do.
 
They are spending it to upgrade the infrastructure for the Georgetown corridor, but the entire lines need upgrading for it to be usefull.
 
EnviroTO said:
I drove out to the airport this weekend but didn't park so I didn't capture any photos, but I must say I am surprised by how little clearance it looks like there will be between the air-rail link bridge and the T1 departures ramp coming from the 427 and Dixon exit. It looks like they might need to hang a low clearance sign on a bridge 5 storeys in the air. I can't even imagine what it will be like to be driving on that ramp and passing under that bridge when there is a train going overhead.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be a big deal:

800px-Skytrain-overpass.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top