This is due to the aforementioned signalization requirements for red clearance times. Showing that these LRTs will not be solely line-of-sight systems.

I understand your frustration here. To an earlier point I made in this thread, most international tram systems do slow down *slightly* when crossing intersections for safety reasons due to the physics of friction mentioned by @MovingBlock. North America is a risk-adverse and litigious society...

There is no underpinning of an active transit station above and the station will be mined. So aside from the two shafts where the headhouses will be, there will not be much disruption to the surface in addition to what is already being experienced.

I know there are special provisions on Finch West LRT that will help support the movement of LRVs better that are not on ECLRT. I believe that it will still interface with the signalling system with ATP that will provide better than line-of-sight operation.

This is exactly it, the Ontario government fully funded the projects, that's why they were able to go ahead. Then the federal government chipped in.

EA documents look generally at the broader evaluation of environmental impacts, one feature of the TPAP is that you do not need to evaluate alternatives. Yes, you are correct in saying that the EA could encompass the full build, whereas the actual build could be phased. The size of facility...

There is a happy medium here where we can hope for better, and also take the good aspects of each. It's not just a binary choice.

Yes exactly, so for OL, when they advertise 90 second headways (that is operational headways) i.e., the trains will actually be able to come every 90 seconds.

In order to have practical 90 s headways, it has to be operationally capable of better headways so that factors such as dwell time don't interfere as every second matters.

Yes, but what is the point that you want to make?

The specific point that I was referring to is not a contract requirement. But, you would be correct to state that any contract requirements would be written as a capacity that must be achieved.

Maybe I have said too much then... But, the MSF is designed for a certain level of future expansion, and there's a bigger incentive for Hitachi to set up shop here.

90 s headways are not built in as opening day service frequency, but are a triggerable level within the contract. Please also remember that in addition to the maintenance and operations, the RSSOM contract also includes the construction of rails, OCS, PSDs, signalling, and the MSF.

OL Contract has Canadian Content requirements, so final assembly will require setting up a local facility.

Not rip up, add.

This is one of the options, but there is a more recent option with the keyhole entrance.

It's a hallmark of a bad politician to die on hills. Given the diversity of opinions and the things that are within your control, it's always about compromise. Recently, there has been a lot more hyper partisan politics, and generally they don't play out well. I haven't heard about the masses...

I would add that the lack of transit vehicle manufacturers in North America has to do with the lack of transit attitude in North America. Large procurements every 30 years are not financially viable, but with constant expansion and staggered replacements medium sized orders every couple years...

There seems to be concerns with running platform canopies over OCS. But I agree that the canopy could go over the tracks to allow for covered boarding. I was referring specifically to the sidewalls of the shelters, and how they correlate with platform size.

The biggest challenges with shelters is space. With modern clearway width requirements to accommodate mobility devices, a wider platform is required for more substantial shelters. Now it is a matter of deciding what the priority is in allocating road space, but it is very unlikely to be a...