Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I think ultimately if you look at the goal of the entire project, north to south, and assume one day this is something we want and will have, then it doesn't make sense to do the easy stuff first if it isn't going to result in savings elsewhere in the system.
|
For that I think the City should have done a PR reset for the project, come clean to the public about the new project costs, explicitly declare future stages so that the North feel a part of it and have some confidence that it'll come someday, and instill discipline on each stage so that it doesn't eat all of the future funding. It's hard to take City assurances these days when the future transit funding that was supposed to extend the line north, gets redirected to going SE without any council or public consultation.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1818467128166826184
And also work with Alberta and Canada to have a credible funding schedule for a $13, $14 billion project so that extensions can be built with minimal delay.
Quote:
|
This partial plan would make sense to the North, where it would be useful and generate revenue to support it. But to the south? All it does is provide low ridership numbers as evidence it is a boondoggle and will prevent any further expansion. Get the DT done in the best way possible with the most foresight, and worry about the rest later.
|
Unfortunately the Green Line decisions and spending since 2017 has made it only possible to build in the SE. Beddington/64th Av to Highfield even with at-grade/elevated compromises should still be a useful line (and replace lots of buses) but there's no work done in the north to get it ready, so it'll be easier just to build further to the SE. I wasn't expecting any work in the north until the Green Line reached Seton even before the July changes.