Comment 55365

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:48:07

I don't think putting subway in all areas of the old "Transit city" plan would make sense.

However, my focus is going to be the Eglington crosstown LRT. This line, as planned in transit city, will travel underground for a significant portion of the route. Underground LRT and underground subway costs are much more comparable than above ground LRT and underground subway.

My understanding is that turning this part of the line into subway instead of LRT would not cost substantially more, and would provide the capacity to carry larger number of passengers.

I think the issue of whether or not the eglington crosstown line should be LRT or subway should perhaps be up for genuine discussion, given my understanding that the marginal cost of upgrading to subways, for most of the route, would not be much, and given the potential greater carrying capacity of a subway. At the very least the planning for the LRT system should involve planning for the "upgrade" to a subway at some point down the road, should ridership warrant. (Always good to plan ahead).

I agree that considering subways instead of LRT on the rest of the proposed lines (Finch for example) is really a non-starter due to the large cost difference in an area where ridership does not warrant a subway.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds