Search results

I assume it's optioned this way on purpose. You either want to go deeper in Scarborough and get a one-seat ride to Yonge or you want a one seat ride all along Scarborough and North York from McCowan to Sheppard West.

The way I see it 2B kinda screws over North Scarborough and Markham for subway access to only improve regional travel marginally. This has the feel of the LRT vs subway debate all over again where a bunch of people who don't live in the area are prioritizing goals other than local benefits.

Post-Line 2 and Sheppard extension nobody will be taking an LRT to connect to a subway at Kennedy. They would take a bus to McCowan station and have two options there. This is why I say connecting EELRT to MTC is largely redundant. I don't think they should bother unless it's a Sheppard branch...

Honestly, I don't see the value of an STC terminus. 1) Kills the possibility of extension. 2) The value of STC as a local bus hub will diminish post Line 2 extension as the bus hub for Agincourt, Malvern and Markham moves to Sheppard/McCowan. 3) Probably more expensive. I say 2A.

The attraction of living at Sheppard/McCowan is access to the subway. Whether there is one line or two doesn't substantially change what will get built there. Developers will build as many units at that intersection as they can get away with.

Y'all have learned nothing from the Scarborough subway debates apparently.

Sheppard and Morningside works just fine to meet EELRT. Also, running EELRT on Sheppard and up Neilson is complicated and operationally risky. You know what is the same distance and has a lot less traffic conflicts? McLevin-Sewells-Tapscott. That said, EELRT is not the best way to serve...

It's a bunch of plazas and a gas station at Sheppard/Morningside. That place has a ton of densification potential. UTSC on other hand can't be developed much. Sheppard/McCowan is already going to densify substantially with the Line 2 extension. What exactly would be different with a...

Poilievre is definitely not going to be better. But letting this government's arrogance and gaslighting pass is probably not good in the long run. It's going to teach them there's no consequences for poor governance.

Anything to not acknowledge the fact that their policies have substantially increased inequality and destroyed productivity and competitiveness by parking 90% of this country's wealth in one unproductive sector: housing...

When those exceptions happen, we tend to have good data though. So it's not hard to determine viability. The gravity model is good for making predictions where substantial service doesn't already exist and/or we have no idea what would pan out. For example, assessing Peterborough-Toronto.

Air Canada used to have a morning departure to London. But it basically means an extra night at the hotel. Depart at 8am here. Arrive around 8pm in London. By the time you were out of the airport and downtown, it was about 11pm.

This mostly works in an environment where there is political support for an upgrade or service writ large. For example, there was never debate whether service should be improved in Scarborough. The debate was over what form. Catering to these whims becomes a lot more dangerous when facing off...

Absent exceptional circumstances the gravity model tends to be a fairly decent indicator of demand. The problem with modeling is that you need to apply to gravity model to every stop en route and add it all up to get to total potential. That's going to be rare on forums.

One would think you'd have gotten the hint by now. Your conduct on here doesn't at all demonstrate good faith interest in "good conversation". You try to brow beat others into accepting your point of view and when others balk you insinuate malintent and slander them.

The better part of a dozen trains in each direction with almost 300 seats each is not "irrelevant". You're just trying to troll with some sour grapes nonsense just because the rest of us don't think service to Sudbury is a priority. Flat out lie and misrepresentation. You should get booted...

And nothing will justify cuts more than inefficient spending like the nonsense you routinely insist should be a priority here.

Once again mixing up the needs of a urban agglomeration of 7 million with the needs of a few hundred thousand people who make a handful of trips a year. "Rather not deal" - There you go, once again mixing up needs and wants. And 300k people spread out over an area the size of some small...

And before that we should actually build rail where it's fiscally sensible so that Canadians actually understand the benefits of rail and don't just think it's an anachronistic waste of their tax dollars, as a majority do today. I don't think railfans fully appreciate how close we are to have a...