Each group of NIMBYs, in Leslieville, Overlea, and Thornhill, possibly have a point. But I am not going to sign up or support either of them, for the fear of blocking the transit expansion.

1. Eglinton East (east of Kennedy), almost entirely on surface except at Kingston / Lawrence. 2. Finch from Keele to Yonge, and from Humber to Pearson. Almost entirely on surface, except the Yonge / Finch interchange. 3. Jane north of Eglinton, running as a branch of Eglinton. 4. Finch East...

Maybe I was wrong regarding Sheppard & McCowan vs STC. I am not a frequent visitor to either place. My suggestion was based on the fact that a high-density walkable "presinct" is planned around STC, while Sheppard is going to be more of a transit hub. If so, then it is kind of tempting to push...

I understand your points, but I think that with so much parking available everywhere: at the offices, plazas, department stores, and even on the streets, not providing parking just at the subway stations won't discourage anyone from driving. It will mostly encourage people to drive longer legs...

That's a fair point; I never thought of parking at STC. However, it might be a good idea to close all parking at STC and build new parking at Sheppard instead. The Sheppard / McCowan area is relatively open and can be configured to accommodate both buses accessing the terminal and cars accessing...

1. We don't know how fast that change will occur, nor how far it will go. 2. Ridershare or robotaxi are not without their own drawbacks. Less hardware, but likely more km driven overall: say in the morning peak, most of people are going to the subway, but the robotaxis need to go back empty to...

As always, you are brilliant at ignoring all the shades. Otherwise you could have noticed that goals "fill the subway with riders" and "unclog the highways" are not mirror images of each other, simply because they deal with issues of different scale. The subway easily carries 30,000 riders per...

1. If you agree that providing parking is appropriate in some places, then it is hard to see how the Sheppard / McCowan terminus isn't one of the primary candidates. It will be located very close to the spot where the major highway enters the city, and thus is in a very good position to...

Well, I don't have the origin - destination data, which would be nice to have. But my somewhat simplified reasoning is this: the highways leading into the city are full of cars. If those drivers don't park at the existing GO stations, then there must be reasons for that. The GO stations may be...

It will be a one continuous line, but some trains might short-turn at Kennedy. So, the southbound / westbound riders will not need to transfer. But the eastbound / northbound riders may have to transfer sometimes (same platform), or wait for the next train that goes past Kennedy. Probably...

Not having passenger parking at the SSE's Sheppard terminus is a shortsighted move. Such parking can shorten lots of trips by car, originating north of Sheppard or east of McCowan. People could take a 5-10 km long car trip and then a 15-20 km long transit trip. With no such parking, many of them...

^ Mixed feeling about that. Maybe they have a point, but the possible outcome is no subway :(

If a metro system was offered, then why not? Lately, transit projects have been funded by government deficits, with no immediate cost to the municipality. However, a metro would cost 3x or 4x the LRT for the same length, and the government wouldn't go for that, not wishing to prompt the metro...

Centre instead of Clark, would be a non-starter because of the high density potential at Clark, and virtually no such opportunities at Centre (heritage district). Both Clark and Centre, the latter replacing Royal Orchard .. I would like that, but doubt Metrolinx will go for that. As ARG1...

Plus, LRT has a higher capacity limit. Not an issue for the next 10 years, but eventually, the most central line in the city that has 500K+ and growing will probably exceed the BRT capacity. And when that happens, the ability to simply add more trains instead of rebuilding the route is certainly...

Transit upgrades should have something for the people currently residing in the area, not just for the people who will move in after the construction is done :) But I get the situation with the Royal Orchard Stn now. Sadly, that station may not be supportable when combined with Option 3...

The route isn't going through a forest. The Roal Orchard station, if built, will probably overtake the likes of Old Mill, Glencair, Castle Frank in daily ridership. The density around that area is generally low, although there is at least one (maybe more) multi-storey at Roal Orchard & Yonge...

Yes, it should apply to OL as well.

Ideally, Royal Orchard Stn should be built. "Convincing the locals" may be a weak reason, but "stop spacing too wide" is a valid reason. That station absent, the gap between the Clark and the "Bridge" stations will be about 3 km. That will mean a very significant cut in the area's transit...

The article isn't by any means debunking BRT as a concept. It merely states that taking into account the particular, highly unusual property tax calculation scheme currently adopted in Hamilton, it will be harder to implement the BRT network reaching into the suburbs than the LRT line running...