We've begun to muddle two separate issues - the spacing of stops versus the need for grade separation.
The data in the City report shows the usage for intermediate stops for the current 32 bus. The usage at the main cross streets dwarfs usage at the smaller local stops. It will take a lot of development to turn that around. I don't expect the nice folks in those un-dense, upper class back streets to give up their autos.... "cold dead hands" applies here. Only the development right on Eglinton will matter. It's a question of acceptable walking distance for those in whatever new condo's or townhomes are built.
A ten-story retirement home may not generate residential ridership, but it is an employment facility. And, there will be an accessibility argument for a stop, and ten stories is a fairly large facility. Most of the ridership will be employees (low-income jobs, and late night use will be an issue) and possibly visitors (many visitors at seniors homes are from out of town, or fellow seniors who don't find transit all that mobility friendly).
Grade separation is a separate issue. The City report indicates that staff intend to evaluate the cost-benefit of each potential grade separation location by monetising the delay caused by at-grade. The key criterion is time delayed....if you figure that a single duckunder will cost $50-100 million or more, it will take a lot of projected delay before grade separation reaches break-even . There is also a criterion termed "reduction in development potential". I suspect this translates to "extra roadway width needed for grade separation" which in turn translates to "cost of land not available to developers if the road gets wider". If you put a high price on even a meter-wide concrete abutment (which will be needed for an underground grade separation portal), it gets pricey pretty quick.
All told, I'm suspicious that the evaluation criteria will tend to price grade separation out of reach, and the argument will be "the travel time isn't *that* much greater". Which is unfortunate, because (as I have ranted before) "Low speed LRT" equates to "Street Car" and we are not doing anyone any favours if we compromise on a subway-like "quick stop/hard accelerate/good long full speed run/ hard decelerate/quick stop/ repeat" format for our planned LRT's. Adding intermediate stops likewise compromises LRT, and increases the case for BRT.
With Council clearly headed for sticker shock thanks to the current report - BRT might actually end up as a good compromise for Eglinton West. I bet even Mr Tory would land on that one, and spin it as his being fiscally prudent.
- Paul