|
|
|
Okay. I just checked, you're right. But, it still would have been the same length as Ford had negotiated. It doesn't change the fact that the length was included in the negotiation to bury it. And I proudly campaigned against Karen Stintz when she ran for office federally even though I don't live in that riding. Glad she never got elected.
That deal had the Sheppard East and Finch West LRTs dropped in exchange for the burial of Eglinton.
Just to STC actually.
Yes, agree, give it time. The opening was successful overall, and there seems to be good will to work on improvements.
I swear you people are just looking for things to complain about. Please tell us how far the stop spacing on the underground section should be? Because besides maybe Oakwood the stop spacing on the underground section is roughly every 800m - 1km which is in line with the rest of the subway network and is generally the global standard for most well built subway networks. Wider stop spacing means less local utility which can lead to longer commutes since riders now have to travel further to get to and from there closest station. Or you can do what the TTC has been doing since 1954 and the rest of the world does and have a more reasonable stop spacing that maintains speed without sacrificing accessibility. THE TORONTO SUBWAY IS NOT A REGIONAL RAIL NETWORK, IT IS NOT AN S-BAHN, IT IS A LOCAL SUBWAY WITH LOCAL STOP SPACING, and trying to jerry-rig it into being anything else completely misses the point of what the subway was built to do. If we want a regional line with wider stop spacing we can do that with the GO network because long-distance inter-regional lines has always been GO's mandate not the TTC's. The Toronto Subway can never be a viable inter-regional system because it was never supposed to be that in the first place. Perhaps we should look to a city like Paris that has both its subway and its expansive RER system effectivly acting as a second subway network just with wider stop spacing, one has a largely local utility and the other a regional utility. Pehaps the best move going forward would be for us to re-embrace the idea that GO ALRT put forward, that being the construciton of brand new GO lines independed of the pre-existing rail network, on their own right-of-ways (underground, elevated, at grade) with a wider 2-3km stop spacing and a frequency of every 5-10 min on peak and 15min off-peak. All of this ontop of upgrading the pre-existing network as well. Most city's with better transit don't rely on one network to be both a local and regional network because unless you are running an express service you can't have it both ways. Of course though all of this requires our politicians to think outside of the box and remeber that GO network expansion doesn't need to be restricted to pre-existing rail corridors, we can construct new ones, but I guess its easier for them to just try and jerry-rig our subway into being both Muni Metro and BART at the same time.
All the seats are the same patterned colour. Only some decals on the wall and window indicate a priority seating. This is to Metrolinx standards.
So tell me how grade level crossings with proper signal priority is functionally different?
I feel like this is being unfair to Lastman. The NDP under Rae split the Sheppard Line into 2 phases with the first phase only going to VP due to lack of funds, and Sheppard was going to be cut entirely under Harris if it wasn't for Lastman's constant lobbying to build it out to at least Don Mills. Whilst I'm not sure how influential (assuming he had any impact at all) Lastman was in deciding to split the Sheppard Subway into 2 phases was, he was only the mayor of North York at the time so of course he was only concerned with the North York segment.
Slower speeds, trains can't be run automatically, and smaller stop distances are how they are different.
Hmm in theory not that different, but in the toronto context, you are very unlikely to ever see any at grade section run at 80km...60km max, Whereas a grade separated section will hit that speed for sure.
Except that "I don't like how this line was built, therefore it shouldn't have been built at all unless we could get it the way I want it" is not really a functional argument, fails to take into account the massive benefits the line offers in its extant form anyway (how hard would you have to search to find someone who actually uses the line regularly who is of the opinion that the LRT hybrid design is so bad that they'd rather be stuck in overcrowded, traffic bogged buses instead?) and offers zero constructive feedback on what to be done with it now that it exists. It's an argument on the same level of "If we made moves right now to upgrade the Milton line, we wouldn't have electrified 15 minute service which is the goal of the GO network, which is a subpar result, therefore we shouldn't bother yet and Milton line users can just keep using the buses instead."
