You know, its very difficult to argue with someone who doesn't read what he's trying to argue against. Virtually every single point you make in your post I literally addressed in what you're replying.
A roadway is built for everyone. Cars, LRT, bikes, pedestrians. Public realm is of utmost importance. The Calgary LRT that you're speaking so highly of does not have boom gates in the high density downtown section. Why is that? Because it would alienate the walkers and the bikers from that area. Because they prioritized public realm in that area.
Yes, and since its a downtown core and thus "the destination", its totally acceptable. Plus I do also think that the at grade section downtown is the weakest part of the C-Train, so I don't know why you're using it as a crutch.
At Marlborough station, what they have is essentially a mini GO train running in the centre of the roadway. Completely unsightly and doesn't spur urban development around that area. Notice the acres of parking lots where people drive to the station to park. That's how that station gets its patronage. Not from locals walking or biking or working around that area. They can't walk or bike or work in that area, there's only parking lots everywhere!
And?
Yes, they put an LRT line in the middle of the parkway. It allowed them to save money by not building massive elevated viaducts, while still providing extremely rapid service.
Compare that with Eglinton where even before the line is completed you have billions in redevelopments happening all along the corridor. These new redevelopments will have shops, restaurants, retail, schools, libraries, and parks creating an entirely new neighborhood that will be walkable and bikable compared to the hellscape parking lot mania around Marlborough station.
Let me uh... give you the opportunity to reread what I said... this time CAREFULLY. Let me bold the areas of importance
I'm saying that the two types are uncomparable. What Marlborough Station represents is what LRT looks like when you prioritize getting around quickly. I'm sorry but Public Realm should NEVER be an absolute priority. Function over form any day of the week. Also I'm not arguing we should replicate Marlborough Station, I'm not even saying we should have the C-Train. My point of comparison of the C-Train is that that is LRT done right. My argument for Eglinton is that it shouldn't be LRT AT ALL - but a light metro.
Are you also suggesting that the BD subway is a massive failure then? Stop spacing is too close, no platform screen doors, and not automatic train control. By your logic then BD should be crippled and inefficient and disliked by everyone. But that's not the case. BD east is more used than BD west where stops are farther spaced out. BD east is a major people mover all times of the day, key link between Scarborough and downtown and beyond. Eglinton east will be the same.
You know that there is a middle ground between good and bad right? Every project has some good elements to it, but also some bad elements. Line 2 overall is a great line with many good things going for it. However, one of its major drawbacks is that it has very tight stop spacing - and a lot of stations that probably shouldn't exist that overall decrease the speed of the line making it less efficient as transport.
In fact, same with the C-Train. It is by no means a perfect system - there are a lot of odd quirks with it that absolutely bring it down. When I brought up the C-Train, it was meant to be an example of how you do suburban LRT in a way that makes sense for its environment - it wasn't an endorsement that C-Train is the jesus of all LRTs and we should bow down to its might will.
Unfortunately with you it seems like something is either awful, or its fantastic. If someone praises something, that means that this person thinks that thing can do no wrong. Likewise if that person thinks something is flawed, then its an unsalvagable trash heap.
I drove through Eglinton from Kennedy to Don Mills last night around midnight. It took me 15 minutes, solid. That's an average of 25km/h through the entire stretch with no traffic. LRT beats that at 28km/h. LRT is going to be faster than driving in that area. During peak time, driving will be even slower than 25km/h, making LRT a much better option of traversing that area.
You do realize that 28km/h encompasses the entire stretch from Science Center to Kennedy right?
Its going to be something like 35-40km/h in the tunneled section, and something like 20km/h on the surface section. 28km/h is simply the average speed over the entire line.
You're advocating for grade separated access being just a minute of walking to get to the station, but you're ignoring that you've also removed stops from your scenario causing the average walk to a station much more than if the stops were retained.
Yes. Fun fact, most people in these suburban areas do not live next to the street - and have to walk like 10-15 minutes to reach the street. Adding an extra minute of travel time isn't going to do much. As for development, well that's why you focus development around where the stations are built.
And you can always run complementary bus service, like we currently do on Line 1, and like we are going to do for the entirety of Line 5 (newsflash, Line 5 won't be replacing busses anymore).
Also, for at grade stops, you'd maybe wait for 1 minute if your light is red, but you won't be waiting at at if the light is green which is 50% of the time. For an elevated line or going up and down a walkway, then you always have to add 1 minute to your walking added on top of the fact you're walking more to begin with to get to the stop. Not to mention the added time for people in wheelchairs or strollers. The elevators used by the TTC are slow, making the travel from sidewalk to platform be 4 or 5 minutes. God forbid one of the elevators are down for maintenance, you'd be looping around to the other station entrance to get an accessible entrance to the station.
Ok? Factoring all of that in, that gives you a travel time that is roughly the same as LRT given my generous estimates, although once again your points are very circumstantial. Fun fact, most of Line 1's ridership comes from transfers from busses and other modes, not from walk in traffic. So if you're going to ride Line 5 after transferring from say a Warden bus (like most people who will be riding the line), then most of the timesaves here that you pointed out are irrelevant. Second, the benefits of Light Metro are much more than speed, its reliability.
Look at downtown toronto, and tell me how often you see stories of cars crashing into streetcars, idiots running red lights, drivers driving into the Queens Quay tunnel, etc. Now imagine that instead of a small local streetcar route, you are now dealing with a 40+km line that stretches from the Airport, all the way to UTSC and beyond. What this means is you now have a line where because someone decided to have a nap in front of the streetcar tracks, or again there was a collision at an intersection, some guy waiting at Martin Grove station (a fully underground part of the line) will now have a massive delay. I can keep going.
