Yeah. 2km stop spacing is way too wide, generally speaking. 600-800m is much more reasonable and something around 1km should be the upper limit provided it makes sense for the geography of the street.

Does every line in this city have to go directly downtown with no transfers before it is considered worth building?

It's only as wide as Yonge corridor from Wincott Dr west. East of there the corridor kind of drifts south so Eglinton is in the middle and there isn't as much room on the north side.

Based on our current trajectory I'm going to guess "never."

I believe the short turn is going to be pushed north to Glencairn this year and then up to Wilson once the Spadina extension opens.

I imagine the people living around those stations might have a problem with that scheme.

I remember having a terrible time navigating on the bus network when I first moved here, which is a shame because it's so easy once you know how to use it. Every stop on the system should have a sign which includes route number and name, destination, direction of travel, and the name of the stop...

It also shows unfunded subway lines though.

Was Yonge's ridership actually too low to justify a subway, or is the writer of the piece just assuming that because it opened over 50 years ago?

Jeez, I'm sorry you consider it beneath you to answer an honest question from someone who might not know as much about transit as you do.

Couldn't you solve this with something as cheap as a railway crossing arm?

Wait a minute, if you can put a signaled pedestrian crossing across an ATO line and still keep the increased reliability and speed then why can't you do the same with a traffic crossing?

I don't really know that much about how ATO works but if you can't have ATO interacting with traffic then how could you possibly have it interacting with pedestrians? Wouldn't that be really unsafe?