crs1026
Superstar
A lot of the objections are based on "it won't look right on the subway map".
Well, there are more substantive objections than that.
No one sets out to design seams into transit pathways, the issue is at what cost do you make it seamless. And what does it get you if you eliminate a seam. In theory, a seamless trip beats a disjointed one, even if no one rides all the way from end to end.
There will be x riders who are impacted by the need to transfer - across platform or otherwise - and there will be y riders who don't use the service because the journey looks that much more inconvenient. (The latter may be influenced by the map, yes, although I agree the UT readership's angst with maps is a bit over the top). Unfortunately, the solutions are all expensive and disruptive.
Sheppard is a lost opportunity, but we have Mel Lastman to thank for that. At this point, the most prudent option is to suck it up and accept that Sheppard won't be a slick cross-town corridor. And vow never to make this kind of mistake again. Extending the Line 2 is enough money spent on subways out there.
- Paul