I fail to see how this changes the ridership numbers since it still serves the same stations at roughly the same locations. The only possible way this can impact riders is if this route increases travel times by a minute, or makes riding the train slightly noisier, which is a concern but I don't find this likely.
The above makes no sense to me. The line, as routed, misses a High School, and the largest middle school by enrollment in the GTA.
The line is not present at Overlea/Don Mills.
I already did a post showing the different distance models to portions of Thorncliffe and Flemingdon. You're welcome to go back and read them. They show at difference of thousands of potential riders per day.
Regardless, I struggle to understand how my comment is tasteless
I did not use the word tasteless; I said insensitive, these are different words, with different meanings. You don't place a premium on the envrionment and on habitat for wildlife...........what's another acre of land gone, big deal. Ok, that's your preference. Many of us disagree, particularly when we deem the loss unnecessary, because a much better route was available at comparable cost.
..... Guys its a small 50m wide strip of trees in an area that isn't deprived of them, this is simply what one should expect when building a new rail line that isn't underground.
I get that you don't get it. That strip is a) more than 50M wide, and b) the damage to the main valley crossing, the Walmsley ravine crossing and this one, the E.T. Seton crossing is cumulative and is several hectares of land.
There was no avoiding some damage with the main valley crossing, though, if that crossing had been done next to or in conjunction with a strengthened Millwood bridge, that damage could have largely be confined to the existing bridge footprint. Still some damage there was unavoidable. Much of this at the north end was entirely unnecessary.
