sixrings
Senior Member
You mean elevate our subway trains that much of a distance? I'm for elevated rail in the windswept Scarberian landscape, but our HRT trains are too bloody big for that. It'd be noisy, large, imposing...the people wouldn't want it.
Regarding 'anything better than Skytrain to LRT', what's so wrong with that? LRT's versatility proves itself as being the winner. The initial cost is large, but the adaptability of light rail allows for potential through-routing transition to street level in-median. You can't achieve that with our subways or the 'ICTS' vehicles on other systems.
To be promoting elevated transit in the 'burbs, it'd be a wrong move to do so as part of our subway system IMO. Separate systems are the only way. As for replacement vehicles, LRT is the right choice. The first mistake with SRT/Go Urban was not following through on the plan to use LRT, the second mistake would be to continue using non-LRT vehicles.
The LRT isn't as versatile as it should be. It is but it isn't. Here's my explanation. If it was versatile enough then the SRT/LRT would interline with the Eglinton LRT. However it apparently wont happen because the frequency of the SRT/LRT line will be larger and the surface sections of the Eglinton LRT will slow it down. If that is true, wouldn't it come to reason that any extension of the SRT/LRT would have to remain grade separated as well since having surface LRT would slow it down? If that's true is it really as versatile as its being advertised? Sure it can be used under and above ground on the same route like Eglinton but it appears on other routes that wont be a option. SO in essence its versatile, SOMETIMES!