Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
My argument is that providing additional capacity and reduced operating costs is an upgrade that can be worthwhile as long as it has a better cost-benefit ratio than the alternatives. Even when it's more expensive than it should be...
|
Not wrong. So I'd be very interested in seeing the cost-benefit ratios of the alternatives, because so far it doesn't seem like street-running local-service trams had the highest one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
FWIW, I've always wished Eglinton had been light metro. Unlike with Finch, I do think the wrong technology was chosen in that case, mainly due to so much of it being underground. I don't think light metro would have been much more - or maybe even any more - expensive since the extra cost to elevate what are now street-running sections may have been offset by not needing such large stations. The trains could have been shorter with light metro due to the high service frequency it enables, while not needing drivers would have greatly reduced the long term operating expenses.
|
Not sure why (NIMBYism, weather, IDK), but Toronto seems to be allergic to el-rail for some reason.
Threaded Mode