First, when I said it wouldn't be any faster than a bus and less reliable I was assuming that the bus would be ROW down the road just like the Finch corridor. The buses would be just as fast, you can now get 30 meter long buses and the buses won't be stopped by a power failure or an accident anywhere along the route which would bring this supposed "rpaid transit" to a screetching halt.
Second, I understand that the SRT to LRT conversion will run along the current SRT corridor but will not be totally grade separated after Malvern and just one intersection means the line can't be automated.
Third, the Eglinton Line will NOT be grade separated transit as I stated. Rapid and mass transit is only as effective as it's weakest link. Any accident along the DM to Kennedy section will halt the whole line. This is say nothing of the fact that it will more expensive to run as it can't be automated, be able to run less frequenctly and the stations will cost more as they will have to be larger to accomodate the same capacity. The Canada Line stations are too small but those 50 meter stations will still have higher capacity than 100 meter LRT stations as they can run every 90 seconds and the very most any at grade system can run is every 3 minutes. The money they save on having smaller stations could be used to elevate the line from DM to Kennedy.
As far as this "I hate LRT crap" well, that's crap. I happen to be a fan of LRT and I think it is a viable alternative to expensive subway systems. Calgary's CTrain, Edmonton LRT, Dallas DART, L.A.'s LRT Metrorail are excellent examples of effective LRT used as an affordable mass/rapid transit to expensive subways. These, however, are REAL rapid transit with subway stop spacing, near total LRT priority using very few lights and most of the time in complete segregated corridors with train track crossing where the traffic always waits for the train. They are much faster than Toronto LRT but are also more reliable........they are true rapid transit. Those cities decided to give transit true priority and not try to make the transit still secondary to car traffic flow.
Edmonton was the first city in NA to bring in rapid transit LRT in 1975. It was forward thinking and a more affordable alternative to subway/Metro and Calgary did an even better job. The reason these cities brought back this useful technology for rapid transit was due to it's speed, comfort, reliability, and especially it's cost savings. Every city would love to build subways all over the damn place but the prices are very prohibitive. LRT as these cities have executed it brough similar speed and reliability with the huge costs.
The trouble with Eglinton is that it is LRT but with subway/Metro costs. Toronto is building the Eglinton corridor and hardly saving a cent and it will certainly be more expensive to run due to not being automated and LRT vehicles need replacing sooner than standard LRT trains. Of the 4 technology options, heavy rail, SkyTrain, monorail, and LRT for Eglinton, Toronto is going with the worse possible choice. The LRT will have to have larger tunnels to accomodate the catenary wires, the stations will have to be much larger to accomodate the same pphpd, it will be the least reliable, and the slowest. Toronto is having to build 100 meter LRt stations to have the same capacity as 50 meter heavy rail, SkyTrain, or monorail stations.
LRT came back due to being an affordable alternative but Toronto has negated any of those benefits and is getting the worse of all possible technologies all to bring about Miller's LRT wet dreams about turning the "Golden Mile" into some form of bohemian wonderland.
LRT can have excellent applications as Calgary and LA have shown but not Toronto. That's the problem when Toronto has none of it's own money at risk, value for the dollar becomes far less relevant. Contrary to what Miller and the boys thing, there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" rapid transit network whether that be for the technology {ie LRT, heavy rail, Monorail, SkyTrain, DMU, BRT} or how it is constructed {ie elevated, at grade, rail corridors, hydro corridors, underground or a combination of any of them} but Toronto can't seem to get it's head around that.
