People are arguing with me as if I have some power over the way the transit line will work. I have zero power over it. I am explaining why the "need for speed" is really not practical for an above-ground line. LRVs bombing through intersections is not going to happen for many reasons. First and foremost: Toronto is a risk-averse place.
Nobody is claiming you have power. You asserted that you would prefer that streetcars drive more slowly if it meant smaller chance of accidents, and I'm explaining why that mentality is a huge problem when it comes to attracting ridership.
And yes, some people are not going to take the new Eglinton line because it will be too slow. But I know people who prefer their car over the subway because of the delays and problems on the subway. The Eglinton line, no matter how fast, will not please many car people.
Unfortunately anecdotal examples don't supercede statistics, that being the fact that the existing Toronto Subway is incredibly busy due to its speed and (relative) reliability. In fact, the existing subway network carries more passengers than every metro system in the US besides NYC. York Mills station alone, a station that is found in the middle of nowhere with no TOD or development, gets more riders than every station on the Washington D.C. Metro, including interchange stations, and this is before we compare it to cities that forwent Metros in favour of tram-train style light rail systems (I drew the comparison between Vancouver and Portland before, suffice to say the difference in ridership numbers between them speaks volumes).
This generally falls down to 2 reasons:
- Toronto does a great job running frequent bus connections to subways making reaching the subway incredibly convenient.
- The subway lines themselves being fully grade separated allow them to have a speed and reliability advantage that make using the bus worth it.
Had we approached the same attitude to building the Yonge Subway as we did building Eglinton (reminder, that the original plan for the subway was a streetcar subway similar to the Boston Green Line or the Philly subway surface lines), I imagine the Yonge Subway wouldn't have anywhere near the ridership it has today.
And we are forgetting that there are also a vast number of people for whom public transit is their main way of getting around the city: they don't have a car, they don't have a licence, they prefer to take transit for environmental reasons, etc, etc. These are the people who will benefit from the Eglinton crosstown. If you don't think there's a lot of people like this, take any one of the Finch buses and see how many people take transit in the "suburban" parts of Toronto.
So your argument is that because there are captured riders who don't have any other choice, it is justified to build slower and more inefficient infrastructure because some people's lives will be improved regardless? That is... quite the mindset to approach city building with.
The reason why I focus so much on choice riders is because transit shouldn't be treated like a social safety net/welfare program, and rather the goal should be to make sure that public transit exists as the primary form of transportation for the people of most, if not all classes. This means capturing those who can drive, and make using public transit as a more appealing offer for a variety of reasons, namely cost and speed. The captured riders aren't going anywhere, any improvements that are made to attract choice riders will directly benefit captured riders just as well (outside of cases where transit is built solely around park and rides, but I'm pretty sure nobody on this forum is advocating for this).
TL;DR: If you think the Eglinton crosstown needs to travel at fast speeds through intersections to be a viable form of transit in Toronto - then you have to accept it's already a failure. If you think that Eglinton crosstown should optimize travel times while ensuring safety - then you are like me, waiting to see what happens when the line opens.
That is such a strange, black and white dichotomy you're presenting here. Yes, me and many others do feel that Eglinton was a very flawed project in its design and execution, but its not like the moment construction is finished everything is over. There is going to be ample time and opportunity to change operating procedures, rebuild segments that are problematic, and most importantly, to learn from our mistakes and make sure we don't repeat them with future transit projects.
