superelevation
Active Member
I and others have absolutely complained about them in other places, but as mentioned clearly the argument and value judgement are not the same for an extension . . .This is pretty cringe. As someone who spent years arguing in favour of transitioning to nimbler narrow-bodied trains in various threads, I can't say I've seen any of you argue in favour of such outside of this thread. SSE, YNSE, Sheppard. All will be hulking TRs, 6-cars long, hugely excess capacity, entirely underground to boot. No mention of the ills of the TR elsewhere?
I and others have long argued for lines like Eglinton West to be above ground, nobody is saying the problem with the TRs is excess capacity and nobody is arguing the OL is low density. If Berlin / Paris can handle as many riders as Line 1 or 2 with much smaller trains maybe we have something to learn . . .By 'transition to' I meant a standalone line vs extension. All the points continually made by a group of posters (TR bad, tunneling bad, 6-car too big, too excess capacity, high cost, extreme depth, low density, etc)...they all hold true for suburban extensions. Doubly so in many instances. And there's truth to their points. Not like we're talking a few mil here - these extensions are some of the world's most expensive transit projects, with further extensions to be had in the future. Yet outside the RL/OL thread I haven't seen them mention any of their points, which is pretty backwards.
Kennedy is a linear transfer, riders come in on BD going Northeast, and the majority exit the SRT Northeast of Kennedy.But Kennedy isn't. You're going almost directly north.
I've never seen it as any different than transferring at St. George to go north or south.
Spending many billions of dollars to eliminate this particular transfer clearly seems like a poor use of available resources.
It doesn’t just eliminate the transfer, most bus riders are northeast of Kennedy, so you are shortening a large number of bus trips as well, and yes removing the very bad transfer.