10-29-2023, 03:13 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2023, 03:05 PM by danbrotherston.)
(10-28-2023, 11:35 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(10-28-2023, 08:59 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: This would require...*some* investment in completing the station buildout.
If done properly, yes. But I thought they could run double length trains without doing the station buildout, no? I thought it was just "should have" amenities like extra shelters, displays, payment terminals, etc. that are missing, and not any "must haves" like operational infrastructure.
I mean...fair enough, that's possible, but I'd argue we'd be slamming them for that too.
I think it's moot anyway, they don't have enough spares to pair up all the trains...which would lead to inconsistent capacity not a good experience. So we'd need to order more trains with the normal lag time for that.
(10-28-2023, 11:35 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(10-28-2023, 08:59 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: A significant fraction of council. Last year it was a slight majority...we'll see if it remains so this year I suppose.
Voted to increase the budget yes, but that's a far cry from what you've suggested. Intentional mischaracterization isn't helping anything. To stay on topic, I really don't think public transit budgets and related discourse would look any different if the police vanished as a municipal responsibility tomorrow.
I mean, if you want to call it a mischaracterization for the majority of council...fair enough, but it is absolutely not a mischaracterization for some of council, who spoke very passionately about the absolute necessity to vote the police a significant surplus, and one of whom sits on the police board.
To my eye at least several of these councillors strongly oppose all spending except police. If that is not how they actually feel, they should act differently, rather than just protesting otherwise.