Quote:
Originally Posted by Torture
I mean, yeah sure, I wasn't thrilled that it was going to Shepard first either but I get there's reasons for it.
But the bar we're measuring is 'no closer to meaningfully fixing any of those issues' [congestion on centre north] and the two options on the table are:
1) UCP map that stops at 7 ave, doesn't go to eau claire or even contemplate crossing the river for 'many many years from now'
vs 2) the original plan to build Shepard to Eau Claire so that you have the capacity to build either north or south in the future.
I think that's still a meaningful step towards easing the congestion on centre north because plan 2 (the original plan that's now dead, sigh) laid the foundation.
Was it as big or fast as I'd like to see it? No. But it's a hell of a lot better than the UCP saying '#### you northies we're going to Seton!' so I'd argue there's a meaningful difference between the two.
|
Both plans are bad. If we want a train to the north, we should build a train to the north. The MSF excuse was weak then, and its laughable now. They thought they had better land use opportunities for the best site in the north. That failed and they're on to plan B (but there's still nothing really stopping us from using that site).
But if I had to compare, the city's plan would need 2-3 extension phases to the SE. The elevated plan would be 1-2. These extensions are likely to win each time over going north, which is a much bigger job.
Continuing the elevated track due north and then over the river is a comparatively simple continuation of one big bridge project. Whereas going from underground to over the Bow River is basically starting a whole new bridge project. But neither is cheap or easy. But a new bridge isn't necessarily necessary to run a train from the North to DT.