Only if you don't have to pay for it.
Which, as a taxpayer, we all do.
Dan
We paid for 90 metre long platforms which deliver 600 passenger capacity with 90 metre long 3-car consists on Eglinton. Compare that to 80 metre trains on the Ontario Line that can carry 1000 passengers at the same crush load passenger density (6 pax/m^2). The tunnel bore for Eglinton was also nonsensically large for the 2.65 m wide rolling stock.
In China, 2.8 metre wide Type B metros using overhead wire like Eglinton can run in a 5.5 metre wide tunnel.
3.0 metre wide Type A metros on Shanghai Line 10 and Guangzhou Line 13 run in 5.7 and 5.8 metre wide tunnels respectively. Dug by 6.2 and 6.4 metre wide TBMs. Both using overhead wire, not third rail.
Eglinton's tunnel is 5.75 metres wide internally and the TBM that dug it was just over 6.5 metres wide. Those metro cars would be taller than the 2.65 m wide Flexity Freedoms as well.
Line 6 FW should be low floor, I agree. And even Hurontario has a stronger case to be low floor, albeit a weak one. But Eglinton's 90 metre platforms, like Ottawa, are an abomination. We paid more to get less, for platform length, rolling stock length, and tunnel bore.
How long are Line 4 Sheppard trains again? Oh right, about 90 metres long. We literally bore wider tunnels to fit nearly 0.5 metre narrower trains. The TYSSE Line 1 extension used 6.1 metre TBMs to dig 5.4 metre wide finished tunnels. Toronto Rockets are 3.137 metres wide. And I'm not even saying Eglinton should've been a Toronto Rocket subway. But the way it was built is stupid on so many levels.
A crime against transportation as @CapitalSeven would say.
www.ttc.ca
