So you want transit underground so you can zoom along streets with no care in the world that transit riders must be rats as they will see no daylight or see what taking place on the street in the first place doing so.How much extra lanes improve traffic basically operates on a log graph. Reducing a 4 lane road to a 2 lane road is a MASSIVE deal. Meanwhile reducing a 6 lane road to a 4 lane road, eh, doesn't do nearly as much, especially on a regular major street (this is different than for instance on a highway), so its not a fair comparison.
Also, digging a tunnel under Yonge? Neat. To bad it will never happen
Now you're quite literally making the "Bramptonians will forever live in darkness". argument. Rapid Transit underground is almost always faster than Rapid Transit on the street in its own ROW. Ignoring the fact there are less stops, underground/grade separated transit is less likely to have interference from outside sources such as cars stuck turning left, or poorly timed streetlights (don't respond with Signal Priority, since I've never seen that work perfectly, EVER), and the speed of LRTs travelling in a ROW in the middle of the street is always slower than underground or on an elevated guideway. When I travel on RT, I would much rather be underground than in a street median. Period.
The underground section is under 3 km, any speed difference is going to be marginal, but the cost is $1.7 billion instead of $0.4 billion ($400 million).
Hey there, your facts are probably correct and your thinking is great ... for a highway. I ask you to kindly take into consideration that we are talking about main (literally Main) street here. Instead of focusing on level of service (traffic throughput), let's also think about safety and walkability. Sure, removing a lane might significantly reduce the level of service, but it just so happens that the best urban streets all have terrible level of service. Traffic moves slowly, and people feel safe to walk along the street.
Hey there, your facts are probably correct and your thinking is great ... for a highway. I ask you to kindly take into consideration that we are talking about main (literally Main) street here. Instead of focusing on level of service (traffic throughput), let's also think about safety and walkability. Sure, removing a lane might significantly reduce the level of service, but it just so happens that the best urban streets all have terrible level of service. Traffic moves slowly, and people feel safe to walk along the street.
With this reduction in lanes, downtown Brampton will become more pedestrian-friendly and more urban.. and wait! Isn't this exactly what they're trying to achieve? A more vibrant downtown?
p.s. I hesitate to use the world 'disaster'. Time and time again, local and global examples have proven that when you take lanes away (or road becomes more 'congested'), people driving will simply change their habits, be it taking an alternative route or switching to another mode of transportation.
High speeds mean high traffic noise, which makes it really unpleasant to walk or be on the street.
There are five city owned parking facilities, downtown, and when I asked them if the parking garages have ever reached 95% full, they couldn't say. And the parking facilities are already heavily subsidized at only $308 a year, with most of it being used by employees who receive a further 50% off.
Now what would it be like if we turned the section into a transit mall, closed to cars, but allowing buses to go through, and the side lanes are used to widen the sidewalk, and add bike lanes?