MisterF
Senior Member
Regarding average speed, you can't come to any useful conclusion comparing a suburban LRT with the entire subway system including slower downtown sections. The Eglinton West LRT is entirely suburban so even if it stops at red lights it will have somewhat decent speeds. With grade separations and/or pre-empting traffic lights, it would be faster. Probably the best subway comparison would be Line 4, which is also entirely suburban and has fairly wide station spacing. There's really no significant difference between subway and LRT technologies in terms of speed - each would be about the same with the same design and operating environment.
LRT's versatility is simultaneously its strength and weakness. Depending on how it's designed, it can run the same way as a streetcar or a subway or even a commuter train. And sometimes all three on the same line. Its versatility means it can be designed in different ways depending on local conditions. The weak side of that versatility is that nobody knows just what an LRT is until they're riding it. You can market a glorified streetcar as "rapid transit" or "metro" and people will be pissed when they ride it for the first time and find out how slow it is."Rapid transit" has now devolved into a fairly useless term. A mixed traffic bus with wifi can be considered rapid transit. And LRT has gotten pretty useless too, so I can't agree that there's such thing as "actual LRT". Look at the Line 3 upgrade plan. Was 100% separate from traffic, using 100m trains, automated, local-ish station spacing, very high capacity, low fares, ~2-5min frequency day and night. That's a subway. Split hairs and call it a light metro, but whatevs still a subway by most metrics. Nowhere did I hear those terms in any debate or report. No light metro, no intermediate capacity system, no subway, no light subway, etc. Very little underscoring of its traits. Just "LRT".
But then we have Harbourfront LRT, Spadina LRT, new Watefront LRT. And I guess St Clair too. All in the roadway stopping at traffic lights every 50m, all great upgrades, but all 'actual LRT'. That famous Matlow debate where he supposedly schooled Ford, IMO he just added confusion to an already confusing concept. If a line running with a slow order next to a sidewalk is an LRT, and Line 3 upgrade is LRT, then there's clearly no such thing as "actual LRT". It's such a broad and vague term.
This is the main reason I'm supportive of continuing with the current plans for Eglinton West. We already firmly chose 10yrs ago that the line must have an "LRT" monicker no questions asked, and skipped any opportunity to re-analyze when we had the chance (even if it could've saved us subsequent issues namely SSE). We made our bed. May as well just continue with it.




