Several of us have been telling him this for months, and had no impact. I don't think one reply in opposition is enough.
Unfortunately I can't take credit for the "Transfer City" moniker. But I do find it amusing and shall continue to use it. Although it best describes the Sheppard corridor situation, where you have buses to the west, then you have the Sheppard Stubway, and then you have the planned Sheppard LRT, and beyond that you'll have buses again. All those transfers seem silly to me. Especially when the Sheppard Subway was always supposed to terminate at STC.
How come a plan for a Bombardier monorail system simillar to the one in Sydney Australia is never mentioned as an alternative in some areas where it is more difficult to build a Subway or LRT.Also in the long run isnt this system more efficient and cheaper to built than the others?
My biggest concern is that the failure of a poor plan (Transfer City) will justify the belief that a good plan could not succeed (a network based on need, transfer reductions, and reducing trip times). If a whole lot of money is spent on Transfer City and then ridership does not significantly increase I worry that it will be used to prove there is a sufficient transit network in the city, there are no more improvements required, and that transit investments are a waste of money. If the existing Sheppard Line investment had been used to create a DRL or Eglinton line I wonder if the city would be so anti-subway today.