What you seem to be arguing is that they should make the tunneled portion subway, despite the marginal increase in capacity and speed it would provide, while basically neglecting the majority of the planned line that lies outside the tunnel.
Marginal increase? The increase is several fold in capacity.
Giving a tram to those neighborhoods is neglecting them.
That's one of the big advantages of the LRT plan rather than 'subways or nothing' - you can get high speed, high capacity running in underground sections while still being able to provide improved surface running service for a greatly reduced price.
There is only one underground section, not sections.
Some parts that are above ground are too damn slow to be acceptable. That's just how it is. Too damn slow.
If you are interested in price, go for BRT. Price is not the concern. Anti-subway is the concern.
Since forecast demand comes nowhere near justifying subway level capacity on the surface sections of the line, surely a fiscally responsible person would not demand gravy train spending to serve those areas.
Stockholm built its metro when there was close to zero demand in many sections. It proved to be very much worth the money.
They integrated development with transit, like Toronto used to do for decades, until the 1980s. So I say a big FU to all those who say "oh but the demand will not be there"... the demand can be there. Naturally, letting developers do what they want with designing new subdivisions in the praries up in newmarket or aurora is not going to be the solution. The solution is to limit where development can be done, to put it around transit. That was done in Toronto. That is why our system in Toronto grew to be as big as it is and as good as it is. This is the golden rule, and if one does not want to integrate development and transit - then they, one really ought not to be building it in the first place.
You are obviously completely dead-set in your views and proud of the fact that no amount of logic or facts to the contrary could ever dissuade you.
Same goes to the promoters of Transit City. I'm just leveling the discussion so that there can be some hardcore subway promoters. Remember, I want 100 km of subway per decade. So why not find middle ground? Oh yeah, because the tram fanatics do not want middle ground, they want their thing or nothing. They're getting that, nothing. Instead of negotiating with the people they had to be pigs and lose it all. Their fault. They did not want subways - so they lost. It's a great time, when reality hits them in their face. Now to just cancel what was begun from that insane plan.
You see, it is a prime failure to say "we're building this, FU if you have any other opinions, we're going on." That is what they did with tramsfer city. So I tell them wtf for not allowing citizen participation and for just going as fast as they can with their evil plans.
And lastly... you can get experts of any sort to support anything. The key is to integrate transit with development. Tramsfer/Tramsit City is great if one is to promote the suburban sprawl lifestyle. It's ideal for that. I say no thanks. We need serious solutions, not half planned propaganda that will ruin Toronto. In fact Toronto is not what it was in 1980, compared to other cities. We fell behind while others zipped forward. And we're still falling.
Experts wanted to ram highways after highways through cities. Remember how moses wanted to fuck up new york island with three major highways? The prick has his experts. They lucked out. Same thing in other cities, even Toronto. This is a democracy, and the beautiful thing is that if people are not happy, they can vote the pricks out. That is what happened here.
Tramsit City is much more designed for a hitler or stalin type world. There nobody asks can we may we could we what do you think? They just tell the masses, accept this, here drink your milk... I do not want such an authoritarian grip. But that is what we have in Toronto.
