andomano
Active Member
Have you not looked at the preferred plan? There are physical barriers that prohibit those stations. Isn't varying topography a bitch?
^^ A lot of those problems arise from their insistence on using the creek. If they just used Progress, they wouldn't have any of those problems. Indeed, during the very first presentations, the staff were talking about running the thing at-grade through the hydro corridor until the neighbours got upset at the noise potential of that. Since then it's magically migrated to an elevated ROW.
And pray tell what varying topography is so problematic that the entire thing needs to be elevated? The only stretch that's a topographical obstacle is the stretch from Bellamy till Centennial. And even that wouldn't be challenging at all if they used the street.
The most recent proposal had the SRT underground through the railway corridor north of milner, although things may change with the next round of proposals
It just seems to me remarkably boneheaded to switch technologies and then deploy the extension as they would an ART Mk II and not take advantage of the benefits of LRT (like cheap stations).
and the advantage of slower speeds...
I think most people on these forums who are against LRT is because of its speeds being not grade-separated.
Having it be grade-separated / LRT = cheaper than subway but as fast = win-win. If only the rest of transit city followed suit.
The land north of the 401 is relatively flat... as it was a heavy rail corridor at one point in time.
It's the old CNoR sub that led from Toronto to Ottawa.
I sketched this up a while ago... http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en....774317,-79.218979&spn=0.185432,0.440483&z=12
When did the RR last ran???
What was built after it??
The ROW looks like this is a cross section
Houses------------
ROW---------
Houses--------------
You need to talk to LA about their tunnels as they need to happen in various places for various reason. Then there is a few other systems doing this.
As for speed, speed for who???
The disadvantage of LRT is that if you decide to run it like a subway (= underground, fully grade-separated) then it costs as much if not MORE than a subway. LRT is really only appropriate as a supplementary corridor technology where speed isn't an issue and it can be at-grade. What makes subways expensive is the grade-separation, not the rolling stock. And what do you know, it's grade separation that provides "rapid" speeds, not the subways themselves which have lower maximum speeds and worse acceleration than LRVs due to their size and heft. If you're going to go to the trouble of grade-separating an entire line, there's no reason to have it LRT instead of HRT. The only reason to use LRT is if you're running it like a streetcar.