@sche said: How is that a more "logical" alignment? The only benefit seems to be saving maybe 1 minute in train travel time, at the cost of more underground construction (higher cost), stations located further away from most new development, and a much worse transfer to the RH GO line.
And how is whether or not Yonge is a 'people street' relevant? Nothing about shifting the line east to the rail corridor precludes a future extension, either continuing along the RH GO line (which is the better alignment IMO, much much cheaper) or going back underneath Yonge.
What exactly are the benefits of this 'more logical' alignment? Other than that it looks straighter on a map?
Apologies in that case
The problem is the perfect project does not and cannot exist, especially if you look at it at a glass half full mentality.
> every major transit project touched by the Ford gov't they've found ways to delay it, increase its cost and make it less desirable to customers/riders and area residents alike.
This is true, but at the same time, you could also argue that every major transit project touched by the Ford gov't they've found ways to decrease its cost, or made it more desirable to customers/riders and area residents alike, and both of these statements would be true if we reversed the timeline, if we went from the current Ford projects to the old Liberal projects, they would either substantially increase in cost, or upset locals with worse service or worse connectivity.
My question to you is why? Why keep it on Yonge? Are you designing it assuming another extension north at some point? Option 3 doesn't preclude that in any way. If they wanted it to go under Yonge that's an option, or they can have it run alongside the Bala Sub all the way until who knows where to save money. This is how most countries would do this that aren't Toronto.
Again I want you to clarify what exactly about the plan is suboptimal. Is it the longer travel time? Well if we go for the Original Option 3 (and not this 90deg curve plan), that's a time loss of at most a minute, even for riders for a hypothetical northward extension, which in the grand scheme of things is minuscule. This is especially true for those living in the new developments since the station will be far closer to many of the new buildings, and will also be true for many bus riders, especially for busses that travel along Highway 7 since the Bus terminal access will be far more direct than any option revolving Yonge Street (and even the old Option 1 idea).
I apologize to both of you in advance if this response seems ornery.
However.........I have already answered all of these questions, more than once in this thread...........its all been explained before, by me and others, again and again, ad nauseum.
I appreciate that neither of you may have engaged with this ever so long thread at those points, and tracking down old arguments is at least as painful as having to re-type them all.
But I simply don't wish to re-litigate all of this one more time.
That was the point of my first post in this thread today, where I said
I'm prepared to support this to avoid going back to the drawing board one more time.
My subsequent posts attempts to answer questions/arguments; but as has been the case throughout this thread's history, as with the SSE.......
People have their positions and which to engage in a full on trial of ideas.
You're welcome to disagree with my positions. I think I've articulated them well, in brief, today, and at length in the past.
But I have no desire to go there again; and will depart this thread accordingly.
With all that said, I will touch on just a couple of points, not to argue, but to answer.
****
at the cost of more underground construction (higher cost), stations located further away from most new development..........
The entire alignment under Bay Thorn is over 1.1km of underground alignment.
Shift that to Yonge from the same point and you end up at the 407.
The difference in underground is negligible at this point; and given the additional depth now proposed, I find it unlikely there are any cost savings being achieved by going 1.1km out of the way, in a tunnel, to gain a few hundred metres above ground thereafter.
and a much worse transfer to the RH GO line.
My diagram shows a full meet at RHC, that's hardly inconvenient.
And how is whether or not Yonge is a 'people street' relevant?
I was specifically answering another poster who suggested than an argument for the off-Yonge alignment was that Yonge was too car-centric.
