44 North
Senior Member
I am talking about some NIMBY's reaction towards almost silent subway trains passing in their neighbourhood.
To be fair this is an elevated viaduct on top of an elevated viaduct. I support doing it, even though I know it comes at the expense of a track on a constrained and planned-for rail corridor. But probably wise to call a spade a spade. In that it's not similar to Line 3 on the surface, and that it's a fairly tall order as far as transit plans in the city go. Not as much as Davenport Diamond. But fairly tall.
12B vs 11B. Sure 1B is a lot of money, but considering how much farther it goes, and how much the route is simply better, its significantly more worth it. The same route using the original DRL plan and heavy rail technology would be far more expensive, and for what? A significantly worse route, far longer interchanges, and the only benefit being a smidge of higher capacity? Give me a break.
How was it a "significantly worse route"? It was actually pretty good in following Carlaw. Seems like there are a lot of new posters who don't really know much