Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrid247
- Is surface rail unacceptable? Certainly not. You're the only one saying that.
|
What? There's been quite a few posters who argue that surface rail would be inadequate because of the need for vehicular access. Just look a few posts up on the discussion about where cars would go if Bank was closed.
Sure. Bank St subway advocates don't argue it directly. But the sum of their arguments certainly lead to that conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrid247
- Is a fully exclusive ROW on the surface realistic for the entirety of Bank? No, unfortunately it isn't.
|
And nobody has suggested it for the "entirety of Bank". I've personally said at least till Lansdowne.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrid247
It's funny to me, because in one breath you argue that LRT all the way out to suburban Stittsville should take precedence over a rail project in more urban parts of the city (which many of us want to see extended to serve Vanier as well, mind you), and then you argue against it because it apparently facilitates cars. There's some irony there.
|
Personally, I would rate a Rideau-Montreal streetcar higher than most other projects. But that aside, I have zero issues arguing for a Stittsville LRT extension over a Bank St. subway. Ultimately they both serve suburban commuters. As Aylmer has shown, active transport is actually pretty high along Bank. So you're not advocating for a subway to serve locals. Which then begs the question why should suburbanites in the South, who already have the Trillium Line, be prioritized over suburbanites in the West, who have no rail service?
If you had asked me to support a Bank St. tram over a Stittsville Confederation Line extension, you'd have my support. But that's not what most Bank St advocates want. They want a duplication of the capacity of the Trillium Line, only under Bank St. And at the end of the day, they want it buried because they either don't believe or support eliminating traffic from the corridor.
Threaded Mode