Of course not ... it will add a minute or two to the travel time, assuming the same number of stops.
That would remain unchanged, so it would only add a minute or two to those trips as well, assuming the same number of stops.
How many years away is that? The 2031 forecast of the current design is only a peak of 12,000 riders.
Where are you getting these 1-2min differences from? please enlighten me. Because I can tell you they are nowhere to be found. I was under the impression that the 12, 000 peak was from the original plan, and not from the updated plan, which is expected to have a substantial increase in ridership thanks to grade separation.
**EDIT: re-read the Metrolinx ridership update and you are correct peak ridership is 12, 000.
If for some unexpected reason by the 2040s or 2050s you've really got that many riders, than build another LRT line. Perhaps on Lawrence (wouldn't that be great, cutting through directly from Yonge, to Don Mills, and then into Scarborough). Or St. Clair East (from Yonge, some tunnel to get into the Don Valley, a new crossing, and then onto St. Clair East into Scarborough - that would be a great line, connecting communities that aren't even easy to drive from).
Why would you build another LRT line 1km north if the existing transport corridor is at capacity? Lawrance does not hit the same trip generators, nor does it attract the same trips as Eglinton. A DRL will achieve at relieving the Yonge line because it will hit the major trip generator which is the CBD.
An Eglinton Relief line, Lawrence LRT make not. People on Lawrence will take the Bus to Yonge, regardless of the Eglinton LRT underground or not.
In the same time frame, you could add some grade separations at problematic intersections to remove bottlenecks.
So what you propose is to have Eglinton be under construction and out of service (while this upgrades occur), because, if in fact ridership does increase, better grade separation will be required?...yea i'll let you sit on that one for a while...
I don't see why being above ground precludes a lower frequency.
Once again...I'll let you sit on that one for a while....
That's not the option here. The option is going from about a $700 computer to a $3,000 computer, that won't actually last any longer - and will cost significantly more to maintain and operate. How much more, for example, do you think it will cost to wash the platforms at an underground LRT station, compared to an outdoor concrete platform?
pretty sure underground platforms do not have salt and the elements exposed to them, hence it is much cheaper to constantly keep scrubbing and cleaning a tile or granite surface underground than having to spend money and replace the entire platform like is the current practice with above ground streetcar stops i.e. king and bathurst.
It might be a benefit to a few that live on Eglinton, who will have 1-2 minutes saved on their commute. But clearly there are lot more people who benefit from also building the Finch West LRT, Sheppard East LRT, and extending the SRT to Sheppard/Markham.
For that matter, putting the whole $8B towards bus expansion and maintenance would affect more people, albeit not as much time savings, but overall i bet that would benefit more people....
The whole benefit more people argument doesn't fly with me, because benefiting more people doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, it just means it is politically safe. Eglinton SHOULD be subway, Finch SHOULD be LRT. I can see Finch being LRT, and MAYBE even Sheppard. But I will not agree with Eglinton being above ground, even if it means jeopardizing Finch and Sheppard. Eglinton underground is what SHOULD be done.
